Oral Answers to
Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

EU Referendum

David Warburton: What assessment he has made of the effect of the EU referendum on the UK’s diplomatic relations (a) within the EU and (b) globally.

David Lidington: Other Governments respect the fact that this is a decision for the British people. Our EU partners agree that many of the reforms that we have secured in the renegotiation will benefit Europe as a whole, and more and more of our friends and allies around the world are telling us that they value this country’s membership of the European Union.

John Bercow: Order. It would be a courtesy to the House to tell Members what I think Front Benchers sides know—namely, that the Foreign Secretary is away on ministerial business.

David Lidington: I apologise for not doing so at the start. My right hon. Friend is in the far east on the final leg of a tour covering several countries.

John Bercow: We are grateful, and we look forward to the right hon. Gentleman’s imminent return.

David Warburton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever the outcome of the referendum in June, the threats we face mean that our bilateral intelligence-sharing relationships with other European countries will remain vital, and that, working with those outside the EU, European relationships will continue unimpaired to ensure we remain as safe as we can be from external threats?

David Lidington: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to maintain strong bilateral relationships in intelligence sharing between the relevant agencies here, in Europe and around the world, while strengthening the intelligence sharing and sharing of information between our police forces. The recent renegotiation confirmed that responsibility for national security rests solely with national Governments, but EU membership  enhances our ability to co-operate with other European countries to combat crime and terrorism and keep the British people safe.

Ben Bradshaw: What contingency planning is under way with our European and NATO allies for a new provocation from President Putin after our referendum? Putin is of course hoping and praying that Britain votes to leave the European Union and, as the Minister will know, there is a widespread view in security and foreign policy circles that Putin is planning just such a fresh provocation after the referendum, whatever the result.

David Lidington: Given the recent history of the Kremlin’s activities, not only in Ukraine and Georgia but the pressure brought to bear on the Baltic states and the use of the energy weapon against central European countries, we are right to be on our guard. This will be a matter of prime concern at the forthcoming Warsaw NATO summit, and it is important that NATO is prepared for hybrid aggression from the Kremlin that might involve information, the use of energy and the use of soft power, as much as conventional hard power.

Crispin Blunt: Our EU partners will see the EU referendum as a question of our solidarity with them. What lesson will our Italian partners draw from our lack of absolute solidarity with the Italians over the case of Giulio Regeni?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend will want to know that the Minister for the Middle East recently saw the Egyptian ambassador about this case and emphasised that the British Government want to see a full and thorough investigation. Given Mr Regeni’s nationality, the Italian Government and authorities are in the lead, but we remain in very close contact with them and are giving every possible assistance to try to secure an outcome that will give some answers to Mr Regeni’s family.

Alex Salmond: When the Prime Minister described European discussions as “abrasive” and “difficult”, he was not talking about other European countries; he was not talking about debate across the Floor of the House; he was not even talking about debate within the Conservative party. Rather, he was talking about discussions within his own Cabinet. What does that fractious disunity do to the credibility of this Government’s foreign policy in Europe and beyond?

David Lidington: Our counterparts around Europe are robust democracies and they recognise that this country’s membership of the European Union has divided politicians of all parties for very many years, and that it is possible for people on the right and the left to come to opposite points of view. What the Prime Minister has secured—a firm Government position to support our continued membership of the European Union but with licence given to Ministers to express their dissent in a private capacity—is a fair outcome.

Alex Salmond: Does the Minister not feel that the robust democracies in Europe and beyond—not to mention the people of this country—are crying out for a debate on our future in Europe that rises above the internal divisions in the Conservative party?

David Lidington: That is precisely what the Government are leading at the moment. I think that at the end of this week, when the Electoral Commission designates the two campaign organisations for remain and leave, we will indeed see that debate continue, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his party will wish to play a constructive part in it.

Daniel Kawczynski: There has just been a referendum in the Netherlands, where the people overwhelmingly rejected the extension of privileges to Ukraine and its membership of the European Union. How will our Government recalibrate our policy on that?

David Lidington: The Dutch vote was a consultative referendum on a Dutch parliamentary decision to ratify the European Union-Ukraine association agreement. It is a matter entirely for the Dutch Government and the Dutch Parliament. The United Kingdom remains a strong supporter of the efforts being made by Ukraine to defend its national sovereignty and integrity in the face of Russian aggression, and to implement much-needed, far-reaching political and economic reforms that will benefit everyone in Ukraine.

Wayne David: Does the Minister agree that the only thing that Nigel Farage, George Galloway and Vladimir Putin have in common is that they want Britain to leave the European Union? Does that not say a lot about the consequences of our possible departure from the EU?

David Lidington: There are indeed some strange bedfellows in that particular camp, and none of those three gentlemen is one from whom I would want to take advice about where the best interests of the British people lie.

Migration (Western Balkans)

Karen Lumley: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of recent steps to reduce migration to Europe through the western Balkans.

David Lidington: The Government believe that the EU-Turkey agreement will make a genuine difference to the migration flows into Europe and through the western Balkans. The plan disrupts the smugglers’ business model, and breaks the link between getting into a boat and settling in Europe. We continue to monitor the impact on the ground and help countries in the region to manage the pressures that they currently face.

Karen Lumley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to help Greece to manage the pressures on its borders and avoid the distressing scenes that we have witnessed in the western Balkans?

David Lidington: Yes. To date, we have allocated more than £19 million to Greece for urgent aid such as food, water and medical assistance. We are also supporting organisations that are helping the Greek Government to build their capacity to manage arrivals and monitor borders. So far this year, for example, we have offered  139 months’ worth of screening and debriefing expertise to Frontex to help it to beef up the capacity of the Greeks to manage the very large number of asylum claims that they will need to process.

Tom Brake: I understand that the British Government have also contributed eight judges, but I also understand that the shortfall in expertise amounts to 2,500 staff. What more can the Government do to support the Greeks?

David Lidington: We continue to consider whether there are ways in which we can help further. We are not members of the Schengen group, so under the group’s rules we are barred from providing some forms of assistance. However, the Prime Minister talked to Prime Minister Tsipras very recently about what more we could do, and we continue to discuss with Greece and our other European partners how best we can help to manage the pressures on Greece. It is in all our interests that European countries come together to manage the crisis in the Aegean and ensure that migrants are treated humanely but also fairly, and that if they do not have well-founded asylum claims, they can be returned.

Philip Hollobone: If a migrant claims asylum in Greece and then makes his or her way to the United Kingdom, we are unable to send that individual back to Greece because the Greek asylum system is deemed unfit for purpose. What steps is the Minister taking with his EU counterparts to ensure that Greece brings its asylum and detention systems up to the requisite standard?

David Lidington: Anyone in the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes who was not a Greek national would need a visa to enter the United Kingdom from the countries to which asylum seekers are going from Greece. The whole purpose of the EU-Turkey agreement and of the assistance we are giving to Greece is to manage the situation in the region so that we do not face the pressures he describes.

Helen Jones: Thousands of Yazidi women who have been kidnapped, tortured and raped by ISIS cannot come through the Balkans and are unable to access the medical and psychological support they need in the region. Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage our EU partners to follow the example of Germany by admitting some of those women so that they can access the medical support they need? Will he also talk to the Home Office about allowing some of those women access to Britain so that we too can assist them?

David Lidington: Each asylum claim in Greece has to be considered according to international law and judged on that basis. The United Kingdom is giving strong financial and political support to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, which are bearing the brunt of supporting the very large numbers of refugees coming from Syria, including the Yazidi women about whom the hon. Lady is particularly concerned. She is right to be concerned about those people, but the best way to offer them the help they need is to ensure that the money that was promised at the recent London conference on Syria is provided to give them assistance in the first safe country  they get to, rather than encouraging them to make a perilous journey across the Aegean sea in the hands of the people smugglers.

Daesh

Kevin Foster: What discussions he has had with other members of the international coalition on improving diplomatic co-ordination of steps to tackle Daesh.

Tobias Ellwood: Britain has helped to create the global coalition against Daesh that now includes more than 60 countries. The last meeting of the smaller group of countries, which the Foreign Secretary and I attended, took place in Rome in January this year.

Kevin Foster: I thank the Minister for his answer. As reports emerged of the genocide being committed by the Nazis, the allied Governments made a co-ordinated joint statement on 17 December 1942 to condemn those crimes and pledge to bring those responsible to justice at the end of hostilities. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that co-ordinating a similar statement today would be appropriate, given the evidence of similar crimes being committed by Daesh against Christians and other religious minorities?

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. The regular images on our screens confirm the scale and the barbarity of Daesh’s inhumane treatment of minorities. We are now witnessing systematic and horrific attacks against Christians, Yazidis and others, based on their religious beliefs or their ethnicity. I too believe that acts of genocide have taken place but, as the Prime Minister has said, genocide is a matter of legal rather than political interpretation. We as the Government are not the prosecutor, the judge or the jury. Such matters are determined first in the international courts and in the United Nations Security Council, but we are helping to gather evidence that could be used to hold Daesh to account appropriately.

Jo Cox: Daesh poses a particular threat to civilians in Syria, as does the ongoing besieging of communities across that country. With the Syrian regime continuing to block United Nations trucks, less aid is now reaching those communities than before the cessation of hostilities. Does the welcome news on Sunday that the World Food Programme was able to deliver 20 tonnes of aid to Deir ez-Zor in a successful airdrop demonstrate that the Foreign Office, along with the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence, should now re-examine the possibility of airdrops to all besieged communities in Syria?

Tobias Ellwood: I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Lady does in this particular area, and to her knowledge of these matters. She is right to recognise the extra work that is being done to ensure that aid gets through to those difficult areas. This is one of our focuses as the cessation of hostilities begins to endure. We must ensure that those who have been caught up in this horrendous war are able to receive the aid that they require.

Stuart Andrew: Tackling Daesh online is as important as tackling the menace on the battlefield. Together with the international community, what more can the Government do to ensure that social media is closed down when it poisons the minds of young people and opened up to promote tolerance, fairness and opportunity

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The difference between Daesh and al-Qaeda or others before it is that this and future groups will use the internet to recruit, to fund themselves and to encourage people to fight. That is why we formed the coalition’s strategic communications working group. In London, we have formed a cell that shares best practice to ensure that we stop the movement of funds and fighters and that we challenge the poisonous ideology that Daesh puts out online.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Yesterday, the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors met and carried out an assessment of its ability to face terrorism, stating that its capability to deal with the international terror threat was imperfect. Will the Minister indicate whether he will host a conference with Garda officers and draw up a plan to ensure that the threat does not permeate our border?

Tobias Ellwood: That is a little bit off my beat, but it is something that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, the Home Office and I should want to move forward. We have been at the forefront of sharing best practice in recognising when extremism starts to embed itself, whether in universities, prisons or elsewhere, but if lessons are to be learned and if co-ordination can be better, we should absolutely look into that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The international peace agreement is effectively dead as a result of recent Russian action in Aleppo. What further action can the group of countries that my hon. Friend mentioned in answer to an earlier question take to tackle Daesh more effectively?

Tobias Ellwood: I understand that my hon. Friend considers these matters closely, but I do not agree with his analysis. Russia is playing an important role in the cessation of hostilities given its influence over the Assad regime. He is right to identify the consequences and challenges facing Aleppo, which is Syria’s largest city by some margin. There has been an awful lot of frustration at the lack of humanitarian aid, which Staffan de Mistura, the UN special envoy, is focusing on to ensure that support can get in.

Fabian Hamilton: Daesh is trying hard to radicalise sub-Saharan Africa as well as the Maghreb. What efforts are the Government making to ensure that east African countries, such as Kenya, and the nations of the Sahel—Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Chad—do not fall prey to this malignant cancer?

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on not only the challenges of Daesh in Iraq and in Syria, and we are also familiar with what is happening in Libya. Further afield, unless we are able to work and encourage local police and forces and local capability to  recognise extremism, we will see it permeate into other places, such as sub-Saharan Africa. That is exactly what we are doing with our local programmes in each of those countries to ensure that they have the strength and capability to recognise when extremist groups, such as Daesh, al-Shabaab, and Boko Haram, are trying to penetrate their areas.

John Bercow: Order. Unfortunately, progress is rather slow today. I am keen to accommodate as many questioners as possible. A short sentence by way of question and a short sentence by way of reply will usually suffice.

EU Referendum

Richard Graham: What assessment he has made of the effect of the EU referendum on UK trade with countries with which the EU has a free trade agreement.

David Lidington: The Government believe that the UK will be stronger, safer and better off by remaining in a reformed European Union. Were we to leave, we should expect to lose our preferential access to not only the European single market, but the 53 markets outside the EU with which the EU has free trade agreements.

Richard Graham: The EU has preferential trade agreements with 53 countries, including high-growth Asian nations such as Vietnam and Korea, where I believe the benefits have boosted British trade by some £2 billion a year, and talks with Indonesia and the Philippines start soon. Will my right hon. Friend explain whether we would easily be able to replicate those 53 agreements in the case of Brexit and how long that would take?

David Lidington: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he does as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to the ASEAN—Association of Southeast Asian Nations—region? I agree with him that the record shows that alternative trade agreements would take years to negotiate and there would be no guarantee whatsoever that we could obtain terms that were anything like as good as those that we enjoy through the European Union today.

Barry Sheerman: Conservative Members do not like to hear this, but will the Minister confirm that he listened to the wise words of David Miliband on Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning? Is what he said not absolutely true: our international trading partners are already postponing decisions on investment in this country and ceasing to hire in this country?

David Lidington: I missed that interview this morning, but I do agree with what Mr Miliband says. What I hear direct from businesses in this country is that they are concerned about the uncertainty, that some have indeed postponed decisions and that many more would consider reducing the levels of employment or of investment  in this country if there were a decision to quit the European Union.

Peter Bone: Does the Minister really believe the guff and propaganda he is spouting?

David Lidington: I would point my hon. Friend to the fact that the Government’s case—that we are better off remaining in the EU—is supported by the overwhelming majority of business leaders and of trade union leaders in this country. I just wish he and others who advocate leaving the EU would, for once, come up with a coherent and consistent description of the alternative.

Angus MacNeil: As we know, the Government are in favour  of the European partnership, trade and the benefits of remaining in the EU. The EU referendum provides the opportunity to display exactly that, so when will the Minister be inviting and, we hope, welcoming President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel to the UK, with the strong campaign message, “Shoulder to shoulder. It is better for the UK to remain in the EU”? Will he welcome and invite them?

David Lidington: Both Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande have made it clear that they believe the United Kingdom contributes a huge amount to the political and economic weight of the EU in the world, and they want to see us vote to stay within the EU. They are also clear that this is a decision for the British electorate to take, and they respect that fact.

John Baron: In answer to the Minister’s question, our vision of the UK outside the EU is very simply that we would be like most other free trading nations around the world: trading as we see fit. I suggest the Government are playing with fire, because the more they wade in in favour of remaining during this referendum debate, the more the referendum will be seen as being unfair, and that could create further uncertainty, particularly if the vote is narrowly for staying.

David Lidington: The Government are not going to be silent or neutral on an issue that we believe is central to the future prosperity and security of the United Kingdom. I am glad that my hon. Friend seems to believe, on leaving, we should continue to be part of the European single market, but he is yet to say how that would involve not having to accept freedom of movement, agreement to all European rules although we would have no say or vote on them, and contributing to the EU budget. That is the situation Norway and Switzerland are in today.

Margaret Ritchie: Given the claims some have made about possible free trade deals outside the EU, is the Minister for Europe aware of any major trading partner that wishes the UK to leave the EU?

David Lidington: No—none.

Neil Carmichael: The key point here is of course that we have a free trade agreement with the European Union, as we have with other nation states. There is a question that has to be answered: why are so many of the states that have said we should stay in the EU the ones that the other side seem to think we can have some sort of agreement with?

David Lidington: The consistent message that we hear from friends, allies and partners, not just in Europe, but in the Commonwealth and around the world, is that they want to see us stay in the EU. I am still waiting for the advocates of quitting to come up with an example of a friendly international leader who supports their case.

Pat Glass: There are more cars manufactured in one city in the north of England in one month than that great car-producing country Italy makes in a year, and the vast majority of those cars are exported to Europe—and that is just one city in one region. We see that being replicated right across the country. Early assessment suggests that any post-Brexit deal would place a tariff of up to 10% on every single car manufactured in the UK and sent to Europe, and that, over time, that would damage both manufacturing and jobs in the UK. Will the Minister confirm the possibility of a tariff of at least 10% being placed on every car manufactured in the UK?

David Lidington: That is indeed the case. If we were outside the single market, and World Trade Organisation rules applied, we could expect that 10% tariff on every car exported to the rest of Europe from the United Kingdom, which is why exit would be such a bad deal.

John Bercow: Order. I made an appeal for a speed-up a few moments ago, but unfortunately, to put it bluntly, the Member concerned made a mess of it and did not speed up. We must now speed up.

Honour-based Violence

Jake Berry: What steps the Government are taking to support other countries in tackling honour-based violence.

Tobias Ellwood: Tackling violence against women and girls—including so-called honour killings—and the promotion of women’s rights remain central to UK foreign policy objectives. We work closely with the most affected countries, including with the Governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Jake Berry: I support the work that the UK Government have done with the Government of Cameroon in tackling the abhorrent practice of breast ironing. Does the Minister agree that unless we seek to find ways for these so-called honour-based crimes to be prosecuted in their country of origin, we will struggle to pursue prosecutions here in the United Kingdom?

Tobias Ellwood: I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he does in this area. He has called debates in Westminster Hall and in other forums to ensure that we recognise the important role that Britain and the international community must play in relation to female genital mutilation and breast ironing. As he says, those are abhorrent crimes, and we are working with other Governments in countries where such practices exist.

Greg Mulholland: Karma Nirvana based in Headingley in my constituency does amazing work highlighting this so-called honour-based violence, which is a scandalous practice. It trains police officers. Will the Minister tell me what he is doing to work with foreign Government to ensure that they are also training their police forces?

Tobias Ellwood: We have doubled our commitment to human rights and increased the Magna Carta Fund to promote better understanding of these issues. What we find is that states have the laws in position, but they do not apply them. That is where we need to work closely with Governments to make sure that they follow through the laws that are already in existence.

Middle East

David Mowat: What recent assessment he has made of the likelihood of a two-state solution in the Middle East.

Tobias Ellwood: I visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in February and I remain clear that a two-state solution is the only credible way to resolve the conflict. We continue to work closely with international partners to preserve the viability of the two-state solution and to encourage a return to meaningful negotiation.

David Mowat: In 2016, there has been an acceleration of evictions and property destruction on the west bank. By these continuing actions, the Israeli Government are showing complete contempt for the notion of a two-state solution—a fact recognised by President Carter. When will the Government update UK policy to reflect reality on the ground in this area?

Tobias Ellwood: During my meetings with the Deputy Foreign Minister and indeed with the Prime Minister, I found that they remained committed to the two-state solution, but my hon. Friend is right to recognise that measures are being taken and events are taking place that seem to take us in another direction. We need to ensure that people are able to come back to the table, and that we are able to make progress. There is no other solution to this. We cannot continue with the status quo.

Louise Ellman: Hezbollah is constructing a base in Syria to fire Iranian ballistic missiles into Israel. How seriously does the Minister regard that?

Tobias Ellwood: Again, the hon. Lady highlights the challenges that the region faces. We need to ensure that we work with the international coalitions to prevent such events from taking place. Iran is starting to take incremental steps towards greater responsibility in the region. Unless it is able to control Hezbollah and  have an influence, we will see that this nuclear deal will mean little.

Eric Pickles: There have recently been two initiatives in the region: the extension of fishing rights for Gazan fisherman with  Israeli co-operation, and the naming of a basketball tournament after a terrorist who killed 36 people, including 12 children. Which of those two initiatives does the Minister think is more likely to bring about a two-state solution?

Tobias Ellwood: My right hon. Friend highlights the dilemma that we face. We need grassroots initiatives on a low level such as extension of fishing rights, for which I have pressed for some time. Oil and gas reserves can be tapped into off Gaza, which will also help the economy. At the same time, basketball courts and, indeed, schools and streets are being named after terrorists, which does not suggest that the Palestinians are as serious as they should be.

Richard Burden: The Minister will know that Israel is demolishing Palestinian homes and other structures at three times the rate at which it did so last year. I was in the region last week, with the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) and for Hazel Grove (William Wragg), and Lord Warner, and we saw that for ourselves. Given that a number of these structures are EU-supported and EU-funded, what are the Government going to do not simply to express concern but to hold Israel to account? What mechanisms are available to do so?

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman highlights a challenge that we face. Britain has been working closely with Israel to change the approach that Israelis have taken on administrative detention. We have also funded and facilitated independent reports on the challenges that we face, and I raised this matter with the Deputy Foreign Minister, Tzipi Hotovely. I will continue to press Israel to move forward. Again, this takes us back —it is a retrograde step.

Tania Mathias: Will the Minister tell me if he managed to visit—

John Bercow: Question 7 would be a good start. No more today about the Israelis or Palestinians—the next question is about the Chagossians.

Chagos Islands

Tania Mathias: What progress his Department has made on allowing Chagossian people to return to the Chagos Islands.

James Duddridge: This is much more familiar territory for me.
Officials met over 500 Chagossians in their communities in the UK, Mauritius and the Seychelles. The public consultation we published in January received over 800 responses. I recognise that Chagossians have urged us to announce a decision soon, and we very much hope to do so.

Tania Mathias: Does the Minister agree that the £60 million estimate for resettlement for the resettlement of the Chagos islanders, at 0.002% of the international development budget, is a price that the Government   must pay this year so that the Chagos islanders can return home? Every day they are not allowed to do so is a day of shame for this country.

James Duddridge: Perhaps I might outline for the House some of the costs. We estimate that the initial costs would range from £55 million for a 50-person pilot on Diego Garcia to £256 million for a 1,500-person resettlement on Diego Garcia and the outer islands. In addition, operating costs would range from £5 million to £18.5 million a year on a potentially open-ended and escalating basis.

Catherine West: Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office commit that financial resource, which is desperately needed, to recognise the human rights of this group of people who have suffered for so long under many different Governments?

James Duddridge: Following the detailed KPMG report and subsequent consultation, Her Majesty’s Government are looking closely at the matter. The hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not come to a conclusion at the Dispatch Box, but go through due process, and I will try to do so as quickly as possible.

Middle East: Refugees

Chris Philp: What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the EU, Africa and the middle east on steps to tackle the refugee crisis in the middle east.

David Lidington: Ministers have frequent discussions with both EU and non-EU partners about migration and refugees. Our focus is on securing a durable solution to the crisis which tackles the causes of migration as well as the consequences, and we continue to play a leading role in that work.

Chris Philp: The Libyan Government recently requested help to prevent illegal migrants from departing from their coast. When does the Minister think we will be in a position to begin returning those intercepted in the Med to the north African coast, rather than allowing them to make landfall in the EU?

David Lidington: We are ready to respond positively to requests for support and assistance from the new Libyan Government to tackle the criminal gangs of people smugglers and prevent tragic deaths at sea. We have not yet had a specific request for assistance on tackling migration as my hon. Friend described, but we are ready to take action if we receive such a request.

Ian Lucas: What is the Minister’s current assessment of political progress in Tunisia, and what are the British Government doing to support the progress there? I do not mind if the Minister with responsibility for the middle east answers

David Lidington: We continue to support the democratic evolution of Tunisia, and we are working actively to support the Tunisian authorities to ensure that they have control over their borders so that there can be  checks against the risks of terrorists moving across borders and in order to disrupt the work of people smugglers.

Royston Smith: As we successfully engage Daesh in Syria and northern Iraq, what assessment has the Minister made of the threat of Daesh moving to Libya?

David Lidington: It is a very serious threat indeed. That is why we give such a high priority to international work to establish a proper system of government in Libya and very much welcome the work that has led to the creation of the Government of national accord. We are working actively with European and wider international partners to ensure that that new Government get the support that they need.

John Woodcock: Many on the Opposition Benches strongly agree that there should be a strategy in which the UK is involved to strengthen countries in order to stop their people wanting to flee. However, far more should be done by the UK to allow more people in, and one process would strengthen the other. Does the Minister agree?

David Lidington: No. We have given a commitment, on which we are delivering, to resettle 20,000 vulnerable Syrian refugees from camps in the region during the lifetime of this Parliament. Let us not forget that we also pledged £2.3 billion in humanitarian assistance to support Syrian refugees, giving them help in the regions where they are present and trying to deter them from taking the appalling risk of putting themselves in the hands of the people smugglers.

EU Referendum

David Hanson: What discussions his Department has had with the Department for Work and Pensions on the potential effect of the UK leaving the EU on employment.

David Lidington: The Government’s view is that the UK will be stronger, safer and better off remaining in a reformed EU. More British people are in work than ever before, and nine out of 10 people in work in this country are UK nationals.

David Hanson: Airbus, which is based near my constituency, employs 15,000 people directly, has 100,000 people in associated businesses and has taken the unprecedented step of writing to all its employees urging them to vote yes to stay in Europe, because it says that
“we…don’t know what ‘out’ looks like.”
Will the Minister endorse that decision and tell the House what “out” looks like?

David Lidington: Airbus is typical of a large number of advanced manufacturing companies that are based across national borders within Europe but benefit from the European market, and which also give business opportunities to a host of small enterprises through their supply chains. That reinforces my view that it would be a severe blow to employment and hopes of growth for this country to withdraw from the EU.

Steven Baker: Given the cross-departmental nature of the question, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister could very helpfully agree to go before the Liaison Committee to deal with all these cross-departmental questions?

David Lidington: The Prime Minister agreed with the Liaison Committee that he should make three appearances during 2016. The next one is scheduled to take place before the summer recess. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also been at this Dispatch Box on many occasions to answer questions about European policy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) has taken ample advantage of the opportunity provided by those events.

John Bercow: I doubt that that will satisfy the Liaison Committee, but I note what the Minister says.

Ian Blackford: It is not just those in employment, but pensioners who would suffer the consequences of Brexit. What can the Minister say about any British pensioners living in Europe who may be caught up in the “frozen pensions” scandal if we leave the European Union?

David Lidington: It is the case that British pensioners and other expatriate UK citizens who are resident in other EU member states get certain rights and benefits as a consequence of our EU membership. We cannot guarantee that in the event of a British withdrawal, the negotiations on exit would lead to those rights and benefits being retained.

Gerald Howarth: In the Minister’s publicly funded glossy brochure—I have a copy here—which claims to set out the facts, the Government state:
“Our EU membership magnifies the UK’s ability to get its way on the issues we care about.”
Will my right hon. Friend explain how that squares with the fact that the UK has been outvoted every time it has voted against an EU measure—72 times in total, and 40 of those defeats under this Government?

David Lidington: I suggest that my hon. Friend checks the footnotes to the leaflet, which have been published online so that everybody can see the basis on which those statements are made. We have been successful in roughly 87% of votes in the Council of Ministers, and most outside observers say that we have a better track record than most other member states in getting our own way.

David Nuttall: Given that after 40 years the European Union has still not managed to negotiate a trade deal with the United States of America, surely if we left and regained control of settling our own trade deals, we would be able to make trade deals much faster than the EU.

John Bercow: In relation to employment.

David Nuttall: And create job opportunities as a result.

David Lidington: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend speaks for that faction of the Brexit camp that supports the transatlantic free trade agreement, because not   everybody on his side of the argument does. The United States, through its chief negotiator and the head of its chamber of commerce, has made it clear that it is interested in a deal with 500 million people, the biggest market in the world, but not terribly interested in giving priority to a deal with a country of just 65 million people.

Yemen

Carolyn Harris: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Yemen.

Tobias Ellwood: The level of fighting in Yemen has reduced in recent weeks, and I am pleased to welcome the cessation of hostilities, which began on 10 April.

Carolyn Harris: We finally have a fragile ceasefire in the region, but not before thousands have been killed and millions displaced. There have been wide accusations of serious war crimes. Will the British Government now finally support a full investigation into the allegations?

Tobias Ellwood: I join the hon. Lady in welcoming the cessation of hostilities. The peace talks will begin on 18 April in Kuwait. A number of organisations have been created, including the Yemeni national independent commission of inquiry, which is the appropriate body to look into human rights issues in Yemen. The Saudis have themselves organised their own investigative committee in order to analyse and put their hands up when mistakes were made.

Edward Argar: I commend the Minister for his tireless work in seeking an end to  the horrendous conflict in Yemen. What steps are the Government taking to support the UN-sponsored peace talks in Kuwait in little under a week’s time?

Tobias Ellwood: We have participated fully in bringing together what has been a very complex situation. Often people simply try to knuckle it down to one, two or three sides, but al-Qaeda is in Yemen, as is Daesh. There are not only the Houthis and other groupings, but many militias that are looking at which way the winds will blow. I have spoken on a number of occasions to President Hadi, and indeed to Ismail Ahmed, the UN envoy, to encourage the ceasefire. I hope that we will see real progress when the talks commence in Kuwait on 18 April.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the ceasefire, but since Sunday there has already been an attack on Taiz. Will the Minister confirm that he will be in Kuwait on 18 April and that he will do all he can to ensure that the ceasefire holds?

Tobias Ellwood: I cannot confirm at this moment whether I will be attending, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to outline the breaches, which are taking place not only in Taiz, but elsewhere, including east of Aden, where 15 Yemeni soldiers were killed, and not by the Houthis or any other militia, but by al-Qaeda. It is important that we ensure that the talks work and that the international community supports them fully.

Diana R. Johnson: May I just push the Minister on the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) about the Saudi investigation into the conduct of the coalition campaign in Yemen? Does he have faith that the investigation will be thorough, independent and transparent? Does he expect the initial findings to be published? What follow-up will the UK take if allegations of war crimes are substantiated? Will he also outline the steps that the Government have taken to ensure that the UK liaison officers supporting the Saudi military campaign have not been unwittingly involved in potential war crimes?

Tobias Ellwood: As I have said in the Chamber a number of times, we have one of the most robust systems of arms export control licences in the world, and it is important to make sure that they are robust. We have been working closely with the Yemeni authorities, but also with the Saudis, to make sure they put their hands up when a mistake is made. We have frank conversations with them privately to make sure that the investigation will work as we expect it to.

Topical Questions

Richard Graham: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is currently in Vietnam holding meetings with Vietnamese Ministers about trade and political relations. This follows visits to China, where among other things he pressed the Chinese authorities for action to bring greater stability to world steel markets, and to Japan, where he represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of G7 Foreign Ministers.

Richard Graham: In the wake of the recent visit by Premier Modi to the UK and the current visit by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to India, can my right hon. Friend highlight the trade and investment benefits to both countries from these important high-level exchanges?

Hugo Swire: Indeed I can. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the current visit by Their Royal Highnesses, which is going extremely well. We have incredibly good bilateral relations with India, and the visit here by Mr Modi was a great success. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the soft power we have in our diplomatic armoury, from the BBC, to the British Council, the GREAT campaign, the Newton Fund and the Chevening and Marshall scholarship programmes. All those are part of the jigsaw that helps us to do business and to project British values right around the world.

Hilary Benn: The Prime Minister said yesterday that all of Britain’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies, apart from Anguilla and Guernsey, have now agreed to provide our law enforcement and tax authorities with full access to information on beneficial ownership. Why will there not be public access to the registers, given that the Prime Minister wrote to the overseas territories on 25 April 2014 to say that  making such information open would help “to tackle crime”, and given that, from June this year, the British register of beneficial ownership will be open to the public? If openness is good enough for the UK, why should we accept a different position in our overseas territories?

James Duddridge: It is disappointing that the shadow Secretary of State does not congratulate the overseas territories on the enormous progress they have made on tax transparency and on opening up for law enforcement agencies. This is really superb progress, but as the Prime Minister outlined yesterday, it is not an international standard, and we need to move towards eliminating all corrupt, terrorist and money laundering practices across the globe. While there are states in the US where people can open companies and not have full public registers, it is only fair to say to the overseas territories, “Congratulations on progress so far.” Longer term, the Prime Minister and the Government are clear that we want greater transparency, and that will be about a move towards public access.

Hilary Benn: I do welcome progress; I was just asking why the overseas territories will not meet the standard Britain is going to set.
Our membership of the European Union helps us in the fight against money laundering, terrorist financing and tax evasion—an example being the fourth anti-money laundering directive, on which the UK has taken the lead. The directive will, for the first time, oblige all member states to keep registers of beneficial owners and to make those open to tax and law enforcement authorities and to others who have a legitimate interest, including investigative journalists. Does that not show that leaving the EU could hinder the fight against financial criminality in Europe, because the best way to tackle such criminality is to work in partnership with our neighbours?

David Lidington: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there are many ways in which we benefit, in taking action against crime, through this kind of European co-operation. What I hear from the police service is that almost all serious crime these days has an international dimension of some kind, and countries need to work together to tackle that. The current system, where we can choose whether to opt in to individual justice and home affairs measures, really does give us the best of both worlds.

Neil Carmichael: What more can be done to prevent vulnerable people from being indoctrinated to become suicide bombers

Tobias Ellwood: The Koran actually forbids suicide, and if we look at the profile of suicide bombers from Sousse to Bali, we will see that martyrdom is sold by extremists as a fast track to paradise to people who have scant knowledge of the Koran. They are promised a ticket to heaven with little, if any, service to God. If we are genuinely to defeat extremism and stem the tide of vulnerable recruits, greater emphasis needs to be placed on duty to God in this life as well as the next.

Tom Elliott: The Minister will be aware of reports that Libya paid $1.5 billion into the US compensation fund for relatives of victims of terror blamed on Libya. Why have the UK victims of IRA terrorism that used Libyan Semtex not received similar support? The Minister recently indicated that he would support those victims of IRA terrorists who used Semtex. What is he doing and what support is in place for them

Tobias Ellwood: It is for a previous Government to explain why that opportunity was missed when the United States advanced discussions in that area. What I have done, in meetings both in Belfast and here in London with those victims of terrorism that involved Semtex or, indeed, that was supported by Gaddafi, is facilitate a visit to Tripoli when the security measures allow it.

David Mowat: Could a Minister update the House on the support we have given to the Government of the Ivory Coast following the terrorist attack in Grand Bassam in March

James Duddridge: Last week I visited the scene of the attack in Grand Bassam in Côte d’Ivoire, which killed 19 people and injured more than 20, and laid a wreath on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. Furthermore, I met President Ouattara and discussed how the UK can support efforts to prevent the radicalisation of young people in his country. We all offer our condolences, support and, indeed, solidarity.

Helen Hayes: Developing countries lose three times as much to tax havens as they gain in international aid. Although yesterday’s announcement was a welcome, partial step in addressing that, registers of beneficial ownership will be ineffective unless they are public. Does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister’s anti-corruption summit next month would be an appropriate deadline to insist that all of the UK’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies adopt public registers of beneficial ownership

James Duddridge: First, we should congratulate the Prime Minister. This is the first international conference on anti-corruption. We have already made great progress on beneficial ownership, but it is not the only issue of corruption. Having visited Ghana last week, I know that many other issues need to be tackled. Although beneficial ownership is an important issue, it is not the only issue for that corruption conference.

Kit Malthouse: The huge Mosul dam is crumbling and might collapse. If it does, Mosul will be covered with up to 70 feet of water and 1.5 million lives will be threatened in Tikrit, Samarra and Baghdad. What work is under way to maintain the integrity of that structure

Tobias Ellwood: To use your superlative, Mr Speaker, this is one of the most serious things that Iraqis face, on top of everything else that is going on in Iraq. If a 14-metre tsunami along the Tigris goes through the Mosul dam, it will take out the city of Mosul and put Baghdad under 5 feet of water. The Iraqi authorities  need to recognise the sense of urgency with regard to the dam, which is built on gypsum, and put in place emergency measures and alerts. We have already taken precautions at the embassy.

Louise Ellman: When did the Minister last make representations on the plight of the Baha’is in Iran

Tobias Ellwood: I raised the issue of the Baha’is and other minorities in meetings with the Foreign Minister when he visited in March. I also have regular meetings with the chargé d’affaires—the ambassador in waiting—in London.

David Warburton: Could we have an update on the Havana process, which is working to bring an end to the conflict between the FARC rebels and the Colombian military, and which should offer the best opportunity to focus much more on tackling the drugs trade

Hugo Swire: I do not think we need to get too hung up on the actual date; what is important is the result, which is the big prize towards which all have been working for a considerable amount of time. We again congratulate the negotiating team under President Santos, as well as the Cuban Government in Havana on the part they have played. I am also pleased to say that the United Kingdom has helped the process with advice and financially, with an EU trust fund and a UN fund.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Last week, the Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, said that there is a greenhouse effect in terms of the extremist groups that are bringing their influence to bear in the wake of the Syrian conflict. Can the Minister confirm what the Government’s strategy is for defeating Daesh, as opposed to simply displacing it?

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Lady is right. Not only is that the case at the moment, but when the Bali bombing took place, there were 21 registered terrorist groups from a British perspective, and today that number is more than 50. It is important that we focus on eradicating Daesh in all its forms not only in Iraq and Syria, but where it is starting to spread, and its franchises, such as the Khorasan group, the Taliban, al-Shabaab and Boko Haram. Those other groups are trying to get support from Daesh. Internationally, we must wake up and focus on the scale of the problem.

Rehman Chishti: Given that so many are now using the proper name for the terrorist organisation Daesh to defeat its ideology, propaganda and appeal, is it not unfortunate that the BBC still refuses to do so?

Tobias Ellwood: I congratulate my hon. Friend, who, I think, got an award in your presence, Mr Speaker, for his campaign on that very issue. I am puzzled about why the BBC, from John Humphrys to John Craven, continues to use the term Islamic State. There is nothing Islamic and nothing state-like about it. I do not know what more we need to do. Perhaps we need to write to “Points of View”.

Mary Creagh: I am sure the whole House will join my condemnation of the human rights abuses, documented by the United Nations and Amnesty International, that have been committed by the South Sudanese Government forces, which included deliberately suffocating men and boys in a container and allowing government soldiers to rape women in lieu of wages. Following his recent visit to South Sudan, can the Minister tell the House what representations he has made to the Government of South Sudan and what process is in place for peace?

James Duddridge: I made a number of representations to President Salva Kiir and to Riek Machar during the African Union meeting. The UK Government secured agreement at the UN for a new commission on human rights, and the Government of South Sudan must now fulfil its commitment to co-operate with the commission, which is charged with investigating gang rapes, the destruction of villages and attacks on civilians that may even constitute war crimes.

Martin Vickers: Many of my constituents have expressed concern about the possible admission of Turkey to the EU. Is it still the Government’s policy to support Turkish admission? Bearing in mind public hostility, are they prepared to reconsider their position

David Lidington: As the Prime Minister said the other day in the House, Turkish membership of the EU is not on the cards for many years indeed. That is not least because there would have to be a Cyprus settlement before Cyprus lifted its block on a whole number of the negotiating chapters. That is not something that we are likely to face in the lifetime of this Parliament or the next, and possibly not in the one after that.

Angela Smith: The recently elected MPs of the new Hluttaw in Myanmar are acutely aware of the scale of the task that they face in building democracy in their country. On my recent visit, I was really quite touched by the extent to which they appreciate the support of the UK Parliament for the work they have to do. On that note, may I ask what dialogue the Government are engaged in to promote freedom of expression and political rights in Burma?

Hugo Swire: I am glad that the hon. Lady called the country Burma towards the end of her question, unlike the BBC, which continues to call it Myanmar. We are hugely supportive, as she knows, of the new Government of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who has just appointed herself State Counsellor and Foreign Minister, among other titles. She is basically running the Government. It is very early days.
We continue to support Burma across the whole range of issues, from human rights, to the issue in Rakhine, to the peace process and the ceasefires. I congratulate hon. Members from across the House who have taken the trouble to go to Nay Pyi Taw to try to teach some of the new politicians there the basic elements of how to run a democratic Government. There is a long way to go, but I believe that we are moving in the right direction.

Edward Leigh: This Government and the previous Labour Government have deliberately undermined authoritarian regimes such as those of Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and Assad, and they have unleashed totalitarian regimes as a result. Will the Government accept that Assad, however unpleasant, is not going to go? Will they accept realpolitik, pick up the phone and try to broker a deal between Russia, Assad and the other anti-Daesh movements in order to try to get some chance of peace in the benighted Syrian countryside?

Tobias Ellwood: It is for the people of Syria to decide who should lead their country. The majority of people in Syria do not accept that Assad should be part of its long-term future. He has used barrel bombs, he has used chemical weapons and he should have no part at all in the long-term future of the country.

Derek Twigg: Will the Minister give us an assessment of how far away Libya is from having a stable Government? What is the strength of Daesh there, and are real steps being taken to bring in ground forces to push them out of the country?

Tobias Ellwood: I am pleased that Prime Minister Siraj and the Presidency Council are now meeting in Tripoli. It has taken a long time to get the General National Congress and the House of Representatives to agree to support the Prime Minister. These are important initial  steps, but the hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that Daesh has a foothold in Derna and Sirte. That is why the sooner the Prime Minister is able to make the important decisions, the sooner the international community can come in and provide support to make sure that Daesh does not gain a long-term foothold.

Alan Mak: British exports to China have more than doubled since 2010, led by firms such as Havant-based manufacturer Colt. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Colt, and encourage other firms to follow its lead?

Hugo Swire: Indeed, I congratulate all the companies in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Trade with China, despite the recent setback, is still doing extremely well. Our bilateral relations have been reset, following the successful state visit to this country of President Xi. The Foreign Secretary has just been in Beijing. We both encourage British companies to trade more in China—it is a huge market—and all of us, as local Members of Parliament, to do everything we can to encourage our small and medium-sized enterprises to trade with China. Equally, the United Kingdom still continues to attract huge Chinese investment in our infrastructure, which of course provides employment and jobs.

John Bercow: Order. I am sorry, but, as usual, demand has hugely exceeded supply and we must now move on.

POINTS OF ORDER

Luciana Berger: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have made the Minister for Community and Social Care aware of my intention to make this point of order. In an answer to my written parliamentary question asking for the number of deaths that have occurred in child and adolescent mental health units since 2010, the Minister said that only one such death had been recorded by the Care Quality Commission. However, freedom of information requests conducted by Inquest have found that at least nine young people have tragically died in England while receiving in-patient psychiatric care since 2010. In response to this research, the Minister stated in an interview on last night’s BBC “Panorama” programme that he did not know how many children and adolescents have died in psychiatric units in recent years. This discrepancy between the Government’s account of the number of child deaths and the data collected from FOI requests raises serious questions about how the deaths in psychiatric care of some of our most vulnerable people are treated, recorded, investigated and learned from.
Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, whether you have received any indication from Ministers that they intend to clarify for the parliamentary record what the accurate figure is for the number of children who have tragically died in all NHS-funded psychiatric in-patient settings since 2010?

John Bercow: Extremely important questions are raised by this matter and by the broadcast, although not for me. We cannot have Question Time on the basis of points of order, but as the Minister of State is in the Chamber and apparently willing to say some words, we are happy—exceptionally—to hear him.

Alistair Burt: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to you for allowing me to respond. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) gave me notice of her point of order. Some very serious questions were raised by the “Panorama” programme last night. I have agreed to meet Inquest’s Deborah Coles, the lady who put in the FOI request. There is a discrepancy in the numbers.  There are difficulties in definition in relation to this matter, but the present situation is not acceptable. I will look as quickly as possible at finding a way of correcting the record as soon as we know exactly what the figures are, and at making sure we have sorted out this data problem effectively for the future.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his courtesy. On a personal note, may I wish the Minister very well in that important meeting with Deborah Coles? She is a very formidable character, as I know myself, because we knew each other at university. She is very formidable indeed, and I wish him well.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have just had questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. We had an excellent team of Ministers here, but we did not have the Secretary of State. The Minister for Europe made the point that the Secretary of State was on the last leg of an overseas visit. I thought it was a convention of this House that Parliament came first and that Secretaries of State should be here for questions unless an emergency took them away from the House—clearly this trip was planned. Will you give guidance to the House on whether Secretaries of State should be on overseas trips when questions to their Department are scheduled?

Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Things may have changed since I was paying attention to this—it is 25 years since I was a Minister—but in my day, a Minister for the Government spoke with the same authority no matter what rank of Minister they were.

John Bercow: Certainly the team communicate with the House as a team. That is undeniable. This is not within the power of the Chair. The Secretary of State did courteously write to me to notify me that he would be absent. My sense is that he is not likely to be absent on anything like a regular basis. If that were to happen, it would be strongly deprecated not just by the Chair but by Members across the House. Let us hope it does not happen again. If there are no further points of order, perhaps we can move on to the ten-minute rule motion.

EVENTS AND FESTIVALS (CONTROL OF FLARES, FIREWORKS AND SMOKE BOMBS ETC)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Nigel Adams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to be found in possession of, or to use, certain articles or substances capable of causing injury or behaviour likely to lead to injury at, or in transit towards, certain events, concerts or festivals or other public gatherings; and for connected purposes.
In plain English, this Bill proposes to prevent audience members at concerts and festivals from using dangerous pyrotechnics such as flares, fireworks and smoke bombs. There are places where items like these can safely be used, but not in the close confines of a live music audience.
Flares can burn at up to 1,600 °C; fireworks can be even hotter, at up to 2,000 °C. There is also the added danger of an unexpected projectile. Smoke bombs are also hot and pose particular risks at indoor venues and also for fellow audience members with asthma or other such breathing difficulties. The surprise throwing of pyrotechnics from within a crowd can also create dangerous and distressing crowd disturbance.
In 2014 there were 255 incidents involving flares at live music events, both indoor and outdoor, ranging from festivals such as Electric Daisy Carnival and T in the Park to popular city venues such as Brixton Academy. Like many right hon. and hon. Members and our constituents I enjoy live music, but no one should be seriously burned as part of a fun afternoon or evening. No one wants to see panic at the disco or any other music event. We want to get the number of these incidents down to an all-time low.
Gigs and festivals are particularly popular with young people. They and their parents have a right to feel safe both in attending and in sending their children. Unfortunately that was not the experience of an 18-year-old girl who attended an Arctic Monkeys concert and required three dressings to burns on her arms from a flare that had been thrown, or of the 17-year-old girl at the Reading festival who suffered a panic attack after being burned across her abdomen and thighs by a smoke bomb.
When I mentioned the subject of the Bill to other people, many outside the music industry were surprised that audience use of pyrotechnics was not already banned. Their surprise is understandable given that such protection has long been afforded to football fans by the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985, which made it an offence to enter or attempt to enter a football ground while in possession of a flare, smoke bomb or firework. Courts have taken such public endangerment very seriously, and even those without previous criminal records have been given custodial sentences of one or two months and banned from football grounds for up to six years.
The numbers bear out the fact that that is an effective approach, both legislatively and judicially. By contrast with the 255 incidents at music events in 2014, there were just three incidents at football grounds.
In my capacity as chairman of the all-party group on music, I have found broad support for the Bill throughout the music industry. Live Nation, one of the largest concert organisers and ticket providers in the UK, has been campaigning on this subject for a considerable time, as yet without success. I would like to see that change sooner rather than later, because, with the right support, these injuries and incidents are absolutely avoidable. The Association of Independent Festivals, which represents many popular events including the Secret Garden Party and the Isle of Wight festival, has asked for the law’s support:
“It is the responsibility of organisers to provide a safe and enjoyable environment for fans and the Government should support this objective by creating a level playing field between music and sports fans.”
Concert organisers have every reason to want to protect concert goers. Unfortunately, with their powers basically limited to expelling someone from a venue, they feel rather toothless when it comes to deterring this kind of dangerous behaviour, despite their desire to do exactly that.
Unlike at football grounds, the current legal situation at festivals and music venues is as follows. Under-18s are banned from carrying fireworks, a classification that also includes smoke bombs, in public places. However, an overwhelming majority of concerts and festivals occur on private property. There is no such regulation for flares, which are not controlled under the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 because they are not intended for entertainment use. There is no offence for adults carrying fireworks or smoke bombs, unless it can be proven that it is done with intent to cause injury. Concert injuries from these articles are usually a case of—I will be frank—bone-headed disregard for others and stupidity, rather than malice. Essentially, it all amounts to no rules or protection when it comes to audience possession of pyrotechnics at music events. When an industry wholeheartedly welcomes a proposed law not as a burdensome regulation but as an essential tool to protect safety surely this is one of the most clear-cut cases where Parliament should act. We would not be doing our duty if we ignored it.
The Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims confirmed in a letter to Live Nation in March 2015 that in his view the matter required
“proper examination of how best to deter the misuse of these devices”.
That is a view I share and welcome, but little progress has been made. I believe that proper examination of the effective results achieved by the ban on the misuse of these devices at football grounds leads to the conclusion that a ban covering music events would be the best next step. Thus, in proposing the Bill, I believe the time has come to take that forward.
Right hon. and hon. Members will know that I am not, by instinct, someone who likes to ban things. By and large, I believe people should have the right to choose to take risks and make informed decisions for themselves, even if they are not decisions we would make ourselves. However, audience members have not chosen to be exposed to the danger of flares and fireworks deployed in improper conditions, possibly  by those who do not know how, or are in no fit state  of mind, to use them. They have come to enjoy live music, and these incidents both endanger them and ruin their events.
To be entirely clear, my Bill would apply only to audience members and spectators at these events. There has been a little misreporting today online on the “billboard” website. Venues and artists would still be able to use pyrotechnics in their act and in their stage set-ups as they currently do. I certainly do not want to curtail the ability of trained professionals to put on a vibrant and exciting show. Having enjoyed many a gig myself, I know that “the fire has always been burning since the world’s been turning”, and that when tested properly and used safely it can be part of a great spectacle. I am not sure whether you are a fan of the Kings of Leon, Mr Speaker, but I am sure you would agree that we should ensure that nothing untoward is ever on fire.
There is support from the industry, venues, artists, fans and colleagues from across the House—I am grateful to my co-sponsors for showing there is cross-party agreement. This is a problem on which there is a consensus of concern among music fans and the music industry, and I am grateful for the opportunity to bring it before the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Nigel Adams, David Warburton, Steve Rotheram, James Heappey, Mark Pritchard, Pete Wishart, Valerie Vaz, Byron Davies, Craig Williams, Kevin Foster and Nigel Huddleston present the Bill.
Nigel Adams accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 April, and to be printed (Bill 157).

UK STEEL INDUSTRY

Emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

Angela Eagle: I beg to move,
That this House has considered Tata Steel’s decision to sell its UK steel operations; and action the Government is taking to secure the future of the UK steel industry.
Mr Speaker, may I place on the record my thanks to you for granting this debate under Standing Order No. 24? Such debates are rare, but the situation facing the steel industry cannot be categorised as anything other than an emergency. Today’s debate provides an opportunity for the Secretary of State to come to the House with a comprehensive plan to secure the future of our vital steel industry which is hanging by the thinnest of threads. Anything less from him will be an abdication of his duty.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State said he was looking at the possibility of “co- investing” on commercial terms. I hope he will take the opportunity to explain  to us in more detail exactly what this means. Call  it what you like—“co-investing”, “part-nationalisation”, “temporary public stewardship” or “sheltering the assets”—it is clear that circumstances might require the Government to do this. They should spare their ideological blushes and just get on with it.
It is also important that today the Business Secretary hears directly from Members of Parliament who represent steelmaking communities. Between them, they have great expertise and knowledge that I hope will inform his response to the crisis from now on. Up until now, the Government and the Secretary of State have been found wanting. They have been behind rather than ahead of events. Their response to the biggest crisis in steelmaking for a generation has been warm words but little effective action. There has been what can only be described as an ideologically driven reluctance to get involved as the crisis has deepened. It has been a mixture of indifference and incompetence.

Simon Hoare: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle: I will give way, but I must say that I will not give way as generously as I normally do, because this is a three-hour debate and it is really important that Members from steelmaking communities have their say.

Simon Hoare: The First Minister of Wales has called on all parties to come together to work towards a future, rather than—for want of a better phrase—political point scoring. The hon. Lady is very passionate on this issue, as we are on the Government Benches—it is vital that we have a British steelmaking sector—but will she assure the House that she and her colleagues are taking that combined political approach between the parties to secure that future, rather than trying to drive a wedge between the parties?

Angela Eagle: We will judge the Government by their actions and their achievements rather than their words.
The complete absence of either a manufacturing strategy or an industrial strategy has hampered the Government’s ability to think strategically about what is needed, and  never has it been more urgent that the Business Secretary does so. This is urgent because on 29 March Tata announced it would sell its entire steelmaking operations in the UK, leaving the future of the UK steel industry hanging by a thread and putting 40,000 jobs in communities up and down our country at imminent risk.

David Anderson: As someone with a Tata presence in my constituency, I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State shares my concern that although we knew about this on 29 March—people going to Mumbai knew it was going to happen—we have not discussed it formally until today, and yet three years ago, the Prime Minister reconvened the Chamber within two days, during an Easter recess, to talk about the death of Margaret Thatcher. What does that say about the Government’s priorities?

Angela Eagle: It is regrettable that there was not a recall of Parliament, but we are where we are, and we have this debate now, thanks to you, Mr Speaker.
It is imperative to underline the fundamental importance of this industry for our economy and our country. Steel is a foundation industry. While it might make up just 1% of total manufacturing output, that output is crucial. I believe that our world-leading automotive, aerospace and defence industries and our rail and construction sector all depend on a strong and sustainable domestic steel industry.
Our manufacturing sector is already facing tough times. The Secretary of State said yesterday in the House that manufacturing was up since 2010, but Office for National Statistics figures show a different picture. Manufacturing output in the last quarter of 2015 remained frozen at the level of five years ago, while output in January was actually lower than the year before and is still 6.4% down on the same period before the global crash.
In his 2011 Budget speech, the Chancellor espoused his vision of a Britain
“carried aloft by the march of the makers.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 966.]
But he has failed to match his rhetoric with reality, because since then the manufacturing sector has actually shrunk. His much promised rebalancing of our economy has in reality failed to materialise. In this context, the challenges facing the steel industry represent an existential crisis for the UK’s manufacturing sector as a whole. I do not believe we can safely allow it to shrink further. And I for one am glad that the Government appear finally to have realised this.
Now we need action. Beyond the impact on manufacturing, the crisis in the steel industry matters for the wider economy too. Much has been said about the cost of supporting our steel industry, but far too little has been said about the costs of letting it be destroyed. Recent estimates show that its collapse would lead to additional costs to the Government of £4.6 billion through reduced tax receipts and increased benefit bills. It would also suck demand out of the economy, reducing household spending by £3 billion in the next decade. There would be secondary shocks, too, especially in the steelmaking communities up and down the country. For example, Tata is the biggest business rates payer in Rotherham, with an annual bill of £3.2 million. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne  (John Healey) pointed out today, the loss of this revenue stream to the local authority is equivalent to a 1.8% increase in council tax there.

Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that the way forward was shown by the Labour Government before the 2010 general election, when they introduced the car scrappage scheme to support our automotive sector? It was supported by all parties in the House at a time of dire threat to the sector. As a result of intervention and an intelligent industrial strategy, the automotive sector was preserved and now prospers. Is not that the model we have to follow?

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the Secretary of State is taking note.
The loss of our steel industry would worsen our already record-breaking trade deficit, which is now the worst since 1948. The value of the goods and services we import now exceeds the value of those that we export by £32.7 billion. The loss of steel and our current exports of steel combined with the need to import far more steel would make this barely sustainable record deficit even worse.
Beyond the economic cost, there would also be an intolerable social cost. There are 15,000 jobs directly at stake in the industry and a further 25,000 jobs at stake in the wider supply chain. These are the kind of high-skill, high-paid jobs of which we need to see more. The end  of steelmaking in the UK would be devastating for 40,000 workers and their communities. Some people have highlighted the potential costs of intervening to save the steel industry, but I believe the costs of letting steel fail are far greater.

Richard Fuller: I do not want to pre-empt what the hon. Lady may say, but will she confirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition that the steel industry should be nationalised, and should remain in public hands until it can successfully go back into private hands?

Angela Eagle: What needs to be done is what is necessary to preserve, restructure and ensure the survival of our steel industry for the future. That is the Government’s job. We will be as supportive as we can—I shall set out some parameters later in my speech—but this is about the Government getting their act in order. The Opposition are holding the Government to account for their actions, rather than just their words. That is what this debate is about.

Clive Betts: On that point, we heard nothing yesterday from the Secretary of State, either at the meeting of the all-party group on steel and metal-related industries or in the Chamber, about what action the Government will take on energy costs and business rates—costs that are burdening the steel industry, and on which the Government could act, yet we have seen no sign at all that they will to change their policies in these vital areas.

Angela Eagle: I hope that we will have the chance to  hear about concrete action from the Government in this debate.
I was talking about the costs to the community of letting steel fail. The costs to manufacturing and the economy are high, but the costs to the workers and their communities would be much higher. We very much welcome the recent commitment from the Business Secretary to do everything he can to protect steel-making and processing in the UK, but this Business Secretary has form. Warm words are all very well, but they are worthless, as the community in Redcar know to their cost, unless they are followed up with meaningful action.
Opposition Members are in no doubt that there are huge challenges facing the UK steel industry, but we believe that it can have a strong and sustainable future, and we know that decisions made by this Government now will ultimately determine whether it does. That is why I welcome the commitment the Business Secretary appeared to make in yesterday’s statement to what he called co-investment. Perhaps he will tell us whether he is considering co-investment to save the blast furnaces at Port Talbot, because we did not get an answer to that question in yesterday’s statement.
Will the Business Secretary confirm here and now that he will avoid a fire sale of these assets, and ensure that irreversible mistakes are not made in the way that they are sold? If Tata is to act as a responsible seller, it must consider only those offers that seek to maintain both upstream and downstream assets—that is, both the strip business at Port Talbot, and the specialist business based in and around Rotherham, Stocksbridge and the rest of south Yorkshire. The Government must also make sure that enough time is made available to ensure that an appropriate consideration of responsible offers can take place. It took nine months for the Scunthorpe deal to be developed, yet Tata has indicated that it wishes to exit the UK in four months. What is the Business Secretary doing to reassure the existing customer base that their current and future contracts will be fulfilled during this period of uncertainty? The plants cannot be saved if their order books disappear.
Let me turn to a number of areas where I believe the Government can make a positive difference. The most significant cause of the crisis facing the steel industry is the dumping of huge amounts of cheap Chinese steel on the market. It is priced below the cost of production; Chinese state-owned steel companies are making billions of pounds in losses, yet they continue to pour out more and more product. UK steel producers simply cannot compete with this state-subsidised unfair trade, which is threatening to destroy the European industry as well as ours. We are not calling for protectionism, but we are standing up for fair trade, and calling for quick and effective tariffs that will help to level the playing field. The Business Secretary must abandon his opposition to the abolition of the lesser duty rule and block unfair Chinese imports.
Granting market economy status to China must not be automatic. China meets only one of the five criteria that must be met if this status is to be granted, yet the UK Government support granting market economy status to China as early as the end of this year. Action to level the playing field using trade defence instruments, and on market economy status for China, would give potential buyers of Tata’s UK steel operations the surest sign that the Government stand ready to act.
On procurement, the Government should take concrete action to ensure that UK steel producers are able to benefit from large public sector contracts. The Ministry of Defence will spend £178 billion on defence equipment over the next 10 years, yet the Conservative-led coalition Government scrapped Labour’s defence industrial strategy, which made British jobs and industries the first priority in all decisions on MOD contracts. We are now in the deeply regrettable situation of an aircraft carrier, British surface ships and armoured vehicles all being manufactured in the UK with mainly imported steel, when, with more planning, our domestic industry could have supplied those needs.
The Government must also take action on infrastructure investment. Despite all the Government public relations about this, public sector net investment in the UK will in reality be lower as a percentage of gross domestic product at the end of this Parliament than at the start, and half what it was under the last Labour Government. Of the projects announced in the Government’s infrastructure pipeline, just one in five are actually under way. For the sake of our steel industry and the wider economy, Labour calls on the Government to bring forward shovel-ready projects that require a significant amount of steel, and to ensure that the changes to the procurement rules, which the Government keep boasting about, actually begin to make a difference.

Ian Lucas: I would like to share with my hon. Friend the fact that I received a letter from the Prime Minister yesterday praying in aid and praising an infrastructure project investment in the railway between Wrexham and Chester. However, this is being funded by the Labour Welsh Government and, unfortunately for the Prime Minister, it appears to be the only example that he could put forward of investment in rail in north Wales.

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend makes a telling point, and I hope that the Government will connect those two things in their procurement efforts, so that we can make a real difference to the potential customer base for UK steel at this very difficult time.

Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that certain major procurement projects, such as High Speed 2 and nuclear, are being given to the Chinese? My fear is that they will naturally want to use Chinese steel. Also, if these were British companies, they would be paying British corporation tax, national insurance and income tax, and would be developing supply chains and export capacity. Does my hon. Friend share my fear that there is no proper joined-up industrial strategy to protect our jobs and our future?

Angela Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend, and when we see the Chancellor travelling around China and asking the Chinese to bid for all these contracts, it is hard to avoid realising what is happening.
Business rates represent a far higher cost for UK steel producers. There had been reports that the Government were planning to exempt plant and machinery from business rates, which EEF has described as a “tax on investment”. The Chancellor reportedly even costed this change with a view to including it in his now  infamous Budget last month before dropping it at the last minute. It seems that the measure, which would have significantly improved the future prospects of the industry, was sacrificed in pursuit of his economically illiterate and increasingly unachievable surplus target.
I said earlier that part of the problem is ideology. Labour has been calling for a modern and intelligent industrial strategy, and I am pleased to say that in yesterday’s statement the Business Secretary actually uttered the words “industrial strategy” for the first time. Now that that Rubicon has been crossed, all we need is action to match the words. Today, let us spare a thought for the thousands of steelworkers whose futures hang in the balance. The Government ignored the warning signs for far too long, and now they must act to find a suitable buyer, and to work with the steel producers, the work force, and the clients and customers to ensure that the industry is placed on an even keel. The cost of failure, both economically and socially, is unthinkable. We need urgent action to save our steel.

Sajid Javid: The whole House will have been deeply concerned by the crisis that has affected the global steel industry over the past year. The facts are familiar, but they bear repetition. Around the world, steelmaking capacity is about 35% higher than demand. In China alone, excess steel capacity is 25 times the United Kingdom’s entire annual production. Demand has slumped in China as its economy grows, and demand here in Europe has yet to return to pre-crash levels.
That surge in supply, coupled with a fall in demand, has inevitably led to a large fall in prices, and the knock-on effect for steelworkers around the world has been, quite simply, devastating. Here in the UK, we have sadly seen the closure of the SSI plant in Redcar after its Thai parent company ran up unsustainable losses. Across Europe, some 70,000 steelworkers have been laid off since 2008. Last week we heard that the United States Steel Corporation, the biggest steelmaker in the United States, was laying off a quarter of its non-union workforce, and earlier this month, the owner of one of the two heavy steel mills left in Australia went into voluntary administration.
This is, of course, about more than just numbers. It is a human tragedy. When we talk about job losses in the abstract, it is easy to forget that each of them represents a person: a hard-working, highly skilled man or woman. Many of those men and women will have husbands, wives, children and other dependants to support, or there will be local businesses that rely on their custom, and the same pattern will be repeated throughout the supply chain. That is why, when job losses have happened in Britain, we have done everything we can to support the communities affected.

David Anderson: The Secretary of State said that we must not forget. I assure him that there are people in this House who do not forget. I am one of the people whom his Government did this to some 30 years ago, when they closed the coal mines. They looked at the economics, and they did not care about the social cost, which destroyed areas like mine. The Secretary of State needs to bear that in mind during this debate.

Sajid Javid: I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that when there are job losses and the Government can help, of course they must do so.

Tom Blenkinsop: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sajid Javid: I will plough on, but I will give way in a moment. I am about to speak about Redcar, and I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in that as well. We have committed up to £80 million to helping people affected by SSI’s closure. That includes more than £16 million to help local firms to employ former SSI workers, and a further £16 million to support firms in the SSI supply chain and the wider Tees valley. Millions more are paying for retraining at local colleges. For example, there was a £1.7 million package to help former SSI apprentices to remain in employment, education or training.

Tom Blenkinsop: The Secretary of State said that  the Government would do everything possible for the communities and people affected. As he knows, on  the day of the liquidation at Redcar, he announced an £80 million total package—

Anna Soubry: It is £90 million.

Tom Blenkinsop: Oh, is it £90 million now? We have heard previously, from that Dispatch Box—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Shush, junior Minister. We do not need you to burble from a sedentary position. Be quiet! Your burbling is not required. Learn it. I have told you so many times; try to get the message.

Tom Blenkinsop: Not so long ago, at that Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State changed the figure to £50 million. Moneys on top of that have only been acquired because the Community trade union claimed a protective award from the tribunal to ensure that the workforce got what they were entitled to. The Government could have fast-tracked that some seven months ago.

Sajid Javid: I thought I heard the hon. Gentleman say “up to £90 million”. What we have always said is “up to £80 million”, and that has not changed. I agree that there is a long way to go, but so far, in respect of Redcar, nearly 700 jobs have been created, safeguarded or supported, and only a quarter of the more than 2,000 workers at SSI were claiming jobseeker’s allowance at the end of February.

Anna Turley: I do not want to take up too much time, because I shall be speaking later, but the figure of 600 jobs relates to those who are in work or full-time training, not just those who are  in work. That is important, because it is work that will be vital at the end of the training.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady has made a very important point: at the end of the day, it is about work. Training can lead to work, as can retraining, so it is important to invest in it. I know that, to the people of Redcar, this seems like a drop in the ocean. When a community is built around a single industry, the death of that industry  takes away more than just the jobs. I do not want to see any other steelmaking community suffer the same fate, and that is why the Government have been taking real action to support the industry.

Andy McDonald: Does the Secretary of State begin to appreciate how this flows into the community? A medical centre on Teesside that I visited recently lost two nurses, who had to give up their bursary-funded training programmes because their husbands lost their jobs at SSI. The consequences and the ripples spread right out. It is not 2,200 people who have lost their jobs; it is up to 9,000 people, and the Secretary of State should understand that.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there can be a devastating effect on the community that goes way beyond the actual job losses at SSI. That is why we must do everything, together, to prevent the same thing from happening to any other community, and we must support the supply chain, because, as he says, there is a ripple effect throughout the community on many, many businesses.

Geraint Davies: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sajid Javid: I will give way once more, but then I must plough on.

Geraint Davies: The Secretary of State may know that I worked very hard with Members on both sides of the House to secure a proper pension for the Visteon pensioners from Ford when it had short-changed them. Given that Tata has almost fully paid up its pension fund, will the Government socialise that fund, so that the pensioners can be secure in the knowledge that they will have a pension in future, and so that prospective buyers need not be concerned about that?

Sajid Javid: I will move on to the subject of Tata in a moment, but the hon. Gentleman is right to identify pensions as an issue, and we are considering all possible solutions.
Let me say a little about the action that we have already taken. We have taken action on power: £76 million has already been paid to steelmakers to compensate for high energy bills, and we expect to pay more than £100 million in the current financial year alone. In the autumn statement, just five months ago, we announced that we would go further. Energy-intensive industries will be exempted from renewable policy costs—a move that will save the steel industry more than £400 million by the end of this Parliament.

David Davies: Surely my right hon. Friend agrees that, rather than compensating businesses for a tax that we levied, it would be far more sensible and logical to scrap the tax.

Sajid Javid: Given what my hon. Friend has said, I presume that our move towards exemption rather than compensation is exactly what he wants to see.

Clive Betts: Does the Secretary of State accept that the support that the Government are giving our steel industry in respect of energy costs is only a fraction of the support   that Germany and other countries are giving their steel industries? It will still leave our industry with much higher energy costs than those of other European Union countries. Is the Secretary of State not prepared to consider going further to help our industry when it is in such a difficult position?

Sajid Javid: By calling it a fraction, the hon. Gentleman underplays the help that this support is providing to the industry. The manufacturers in the industry see this as a big game-changer in how they account for the cost of power. I can agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, in that I think there is still more to look at in this area, particularly with regard to Tata and securing a buyer.

Alex Cunningham: In a meeting with the Industrial Communities Alliance, which represents traditional industrial areas in the UK, the EU Commission reiterated its commitment to change the trade defence instruments, which would tackle the cheap steel issue. We are in line and the Commission is in line. Will the Secretary of State get in line to ensure that we can make these changes?

Sajid Javid: I will come on to trade defence instruments in just a moment.
I want to talk about the delivery of a new flexibility on emissions regulations. This was asked for by the industry and we have delivered, potentially saving the industry hundreds of millions of pounds. We have also taken action on procurement, and we have become the first country anywhere in Europe to take advantage of EU rules to make it easier for the public sector to buy British. That is on top of our proud record of procuring British steel.

Stephen Doughty: The Secretary of State makes much of the changes he is making on procurement. The Minister for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who is sitting next to him, told me in answer to a recent question that the Ministry of Defence did not even have full records of where it was getting its steel from for UK defence projects. How can we be sure that the Secretary of State will follow through on his commitment on procurement when Government Departments are not even keeping records and when so many UK defence projects are being made in Korea, China and elsewhere?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman might hear more from the Minister for Defence Procurement in the coming days, but I can tell him that the two new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are being built with almost 100,000 tonnes of British steel, that Crossrail, the biggest construction project in Europe, is using almost exclusively British steel for its 26 miles of tunnels, and that 96% of Network Rail’s spending on steel rail goes directly to British firms. It buys 1,500 miles of steel rail every year from Tata in Scunthorpe. That is enough to build a two-track line from London to Edinburgh.

Nicholas Dakin: I certainly agree that Network Rail provides a case study in how to do procurement, and it is to be commended. However, we need to ensure that the DONG energy contract for developing the North sea wind farm, which will be the  second biggest in the world, will use UK steel. What progress is the Secretary of State making with his colleagues to ensure that that happens?

Sajid Javid: We have had meetings with that particular company and many others in a similar situation. The hon. Gentleman will know that many of them are private companies and therefore not subject to all the rules around procurement, but there are ways of trying to encourage them to invest more in British steel, and that is exactly what is happening.
The question of trade defence instruments was raised earlier, and the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) mentioned the point as well. We have been working hard on this issue at EU level, and that work began long before this crisis broke. I hear a lot in this House about ideology, but I am just interested in one thing: what actually works. When evidence shows that tariffs against unfair trade will make a difference without harming British businesses or British consumers, I will always support them. That is why last July the UK voted to impose a 16% tariff on wire rod; since those duties were imposed, imports from China have fallen by as much  as 90%.
In November, we voted to impose a 28% tariff on seamless pipes; since those duties were imposed, imports from China have gone down 80%. In January, we voted to impose an 11% tariff on rebar, and since then, imports of that particular steel product have fallen by a massive 99%. In February, we voted for a 15% tariff on cold rolled flat products, and that move has already reduced imports from China to almost nothing. This is real action with real tariffs and they are making a difference for British steelworkers.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: The European Steel Association’s spokesperson, talking about the change to the lesser duty rule, has said that
“the fact that the UK continues to block it means that when the government says it’s doing everything it can to save the steel industry in the UK and also in Europe, it’s not.”
Is not that the truth about the Secretary of State’s efforts?

Sajid Javid: I will turn to that in just a moment.

Caroline Flint: I thank the Business Secretary for taking my intervention. I hope that he will also answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) has just asked him. On the question of procurement in relation to energy, the Government are intervening more than ever before in the energy market through contracts for difference. Has the Secretary of State looked into ensuring that when those often very generous contracts are negotiated, they contain a requirement to buy British-made steel?

Sajid Javid: I can tell the right hon. Lady that no stone remains unturned in our efforts to help to sell as much British steel as possible. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) asked about the lesser duty rule, and this point is raised repeatedly by Labour Members, but Labour had no problem whatever with the rule when it was in government. Scrapping the rule altogether would cost British shoppers dear. It would raise prices on everyday items that we rely on. For example, the rule saves British shoppers £130 million on footwear in one year alone. However, I told the House  yesterday that I would be more than happy to look at any ways of specifically helping the steel industry, and I hope that Members will come up with ideas during the debate. I will, of course, be listening.

Ian Lucas: I referred earlier to the Labour Government’s intervention on car scrappage before the 2010 election. They stepped up to the plate to support the industry at that time. May I suggest that the Secretary of State approach the aerospace and automotive sectors and ask the Automotive Council and the Aerospace Growth Partnership to place on their agenda ways in which they could assist the UK steel industry by stepping up to the plate at this time of great difficulty for the industry?

Sajid Javid: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have sector councils for both those industries, and we meet regularly and have a regular dialogue. This is exactly the kind of thing that those sector councils are designed to focus on, and it is exactly the kind of work that they are doing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Jonathan Edwards: I have read some very interesting statistics in the past week. There has been a 43% decline in the foundation industries across the United Kingdom since 2000, but the figure across the other OECD countries is only 21%. Why does the Secretary of State think the decline across the UK since 2000 has been twice that of the other OECD countries?

Sajid Javid: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his numbers from, but this brings me to a useful point. The hon. Member for Wallasey said earlier that I had stated yesterday that manufacturing output in this country had gone up since 2010; she suggested that that was somehow incorrect. I can tell her that manufacturing output has gone up 2.2% in real terms since 2010 and that it is up 18.7% in current prices. Those are the official numbers, and manufacturing employment is also up. If she wants to hear about when manufacturing output actually fell, I can tell her that it was during the last Labour Government, when it fell from 18% of GVA to about 10%.

Adrian Bailey: Steel companies are seriously concerned that the granting of market economy status to China will severely jeopardise their ability to take Chinese and other companies to court for steel dumping. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of that threat?

Sajid Javid: First, that will be a decision for the EU. We will, of course, have an input, but it will be a collective decision. Secondly, if any country wants market economy status, it must earn it. Whatever the country, it must show that it is behaving in a responsible way. Thirdly, we must remember that even when countries get market economy status, tariffs can still be imposed. Russia and the United States would be good examples.

Edward Leigh: Does the Secretary of State accept that many on this side of the House believe that it is for this House and this Government to decide when a country such as China is dumping? We  should decide whether to impose tariffs. Indeed, many of us think that if we had been outside the EU months ago, we would have imposed tariffs on Chinese dumping and would have solved the problem.

Sajid Javid: We have led the way in taking action, which has resulted in the right tariffs, which have helped the steel industry while protecting producers and consumers. My hon. Friend will agree that when action is taken through tariffs, we want to ensure that they are at the necessary level to help the industry without hurting consumers and producers.

Stephen Doughty: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sajid Javid: I will give way once more on this.

Stephen Doughty: While we are still on tariffs, the Secretary of State mentioned the tariff on rebar and the drop in production. Increasing the tariff in that industry is obviously crucial, but other facts are at play. Rebar exports shunted up production before the tariffs came in, so we may have seen a drop-off due to that; there are also the exchange rate differentials. Does the Secretary of State still think that the rebar tariffs are high enough or should they be even higher to deal with the changes going on in that industry due to other factors?

Sajid Javid: We should always be driven by the evidence. The 99% fall in imports year on year, resulting from the tariff, suggests that it is effective, but we should always keep the situation under review and ensure that it remains effective.

Richard Fuller: My right hon. Friend mentioned the action that the Government have taken on procurement and their response on tariffs and power. Yesterday, he talked about Government co-investment. Will he please take this opportunity to clarify what is meant by that?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend will know that that comment related to Tata’s decision to sell its strip products business. What I said was really to show that when the Government say that we will consider all options to help create a long-term, viable business with a commercial operator, that would be such an option. The key point is that any co-investment would have to be on commercial terms. Investment can take a variety of forms, such as debt, but what I said was a demonstration of all the options that the Government are considering. I will move on to say a little more about Tata strip products in a moment.

Adrian Bailey: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sajid Javid: Not now.
The action taken on tariffs, energy costs and procurement has sent a powerful message to investors around the world that the British Government are standing up for UK steel. That commitment is not new; I have been working with the steel industry from my very first day as Business Secretary, long before the current crisis made it on to the front pages. As I told the House yesterday, Tata contacted me several weeks ago to warn  that it planned to sell parts of its strip business and to close its Port Talbot site immediately. Thanks to the groundwork laid by my team and colleagues over the past year, we were able to secure a reprieve while a buyer is found. I am leading the Government’s efforts to help to find a buyer for the strip business, and we will update the House on progress as soon as possible.
When that buyer is found, the Government stand ready, as I have said, to support it in any way we can to help to get the deal done. We have already set out some of the ways in which we can help. It would not be prudent to go into the detail, but the goal is to find a commercial buyer, with the Government helping to secure that transaction and a long-term, viable future for the business.

Tom Blenkinsop: I understand where the Secretary  of State is coming from but, taking a broader view of co-investment, one option is R and D. The steel sector does not have Catapult status. Will the Secretary of State look at that as a potential route for co-investment in the steel sector, particularly in respect of organisations such as the Materials Processing Institute, to get an R and D link with our domestic steel industry?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He will know that Catapult centres are a partnership between Government, business and academia. If that can help the steel sector, I am more than happy to look into it if a proposal comes forward.

Christina Rees: Hundreds of apprentices at the Port Talbot works receive on-the-job training while attending local colleges and universities. Swansea University has approximately £40 million in active grants to support research and innovation in the steel industry at the Materials Research Centre. If the steel-making facilities are removed and sponsorship is subsequently lost, future generations will be deprived and the UK will miss out on the potential to be at the forefront of materials development.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady makes a key point about the importance of skills and training, and I can assure her that we are already working with the Welsh Government on that. I have already started discussions with both the Minister for Universities and Science and the Minister for Skills to ensure that the issue remains front of mind.
We heard yesterday about the deal between Tata and Greybull Capital, and we will do everything we can to help finalise that transaction for Tata’s long products division. Yesterday’s announcement has also helped safeguard almost 5,000 jobs; alongside Liberty House’s acquisition of steelworks in Scotland and the west midlands, it is a real vote of confidence in Britain’s steel industry.
I would not have been able to do this work alone and I want to praise my right hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, who has been absolutely tireless over the past year in her efforts to protect steel, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I have also had the pleasure of working closely with the First Minister of Wales and the leader of the Welsh Conservatives in the Assembly. They have both proved to be positive, constructive allies in the fight to save Port Talbot. The steel unions,  particularly Community, have been equally constructive, consistently coming forward with solutions rather than complaints. For that, I thank them once again.
Investors everywhere know that British steel is the best in the world and that British steelworkers are  the hardest working in the world. They know that the British Government stand with the steel industry. We will do whatever we can to support it and to help it become more competitive. The challenges we face are great and the crisis facing the steel industry is global, but I am fighting for Britain’s steelworkers every hour of the day. I was fighting for them long before this crisis hit the headlines and will go on fighting for them as long as it takes. Britain’s steelworkers are the best in the world, and they deserve no less.

Neil Gray: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) on securing this debate; I appreciate your discretion in permitting it under Standing Order No. 24, Mr Speaker. I will speak briefly from the SNP Front Bench, to allow colleagues from steel communities both in Scotland and in England and Wales to contribute to this short debate.
Yesterday, the Business Secretary tried to dig himself out of the hole he had dug by claiming credit for the news that Tata may have found a buyer for the Scunthorpe plant. He told us that this Government had done everything they could for the steel industry and that workers in England and Wales, with their jobs on the line, should be grateful to the Tories. It is welcome news that Tata appears to have found a buyer for its operations in Scunthorpe, and I hope that buyers can be found for Port Talbot and other sites. If the Government have been involved in the deal, I commend that, but I am concerned at reports of a possible erosion of workers’ terms and conditions as part of the deal. Is the Business Secretary aware of that? If he had discussions with Greybull Capital, did the changes come up? Will he now make representations to it on that matter?
I am also keen to probe a bit further the Business Secretary’s apparent flirtation with direct UK Government investment and the potential co-ownership of steel sites, including Port Talbot. He described it as co-investment in “commercial terms”. Perhaps he could clarify that, because it was as clear as mud yesterday and left more questions than answers. Indeed, it appears that this morning No. 10 was briefing against his flirtation, saying that nationalisation is not the answer. How unco-ordinated and shambolic!

Tom Blenkinsop: On what the hon. Gentleman said about terms and conditions, that ends up going to ballot, after being negotiated with lay reps on site, including those at Skinningrove in my constituency. The reductions in terms and conditions and the pension contributions are for 12 months only. In collective bargaining that is usually called a short-term working agreement, and I have negotiated those many times in order to save sites. It is also an industrial matter; it is not really a political matter for this place to discuss.

Neil Gray: I take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention in the spirit in which it was clearly given.
As I said yesterday, the fact that the Business Secretary was literally on the other side of the world at the height of this crisis two weeks ago when Tata made the  announcement is a perfect metaphor for the Tory approach to the steel industry. Yesterday, I believe, was the first time this Government have proactively engaged with the House on the steel issue, and even that was after a shambolic recess, when there were calls for a recall of Parliament. On every other occasion I have been involved in discussions—certainly on the vast majority of occasions when steel has been discussed in this House—it has been because the Government have been dragged here by Opposition parties, as they have been again today. It is clear that the Government have been comfortably behind the curve on the steel crisis.

Mark Pawsey: We had a statement yesterday!

Neil Gray: I have already said that yesterday was the first time the Government had proactively done this, and that was after a shambolic recess. They have clearly been comfortably behind the curve on the steel crisis; we have seen poor, defensive reactions, rather than proactive and practical support. That is in stark contrast with the proactive, professional and diligent way the Scottish Government approached the crisis facing the Scottish plants at Clydebridge and Dalzell. Nicola Sturgeon said her Government would leave no stone unturned in saving a crucial industry, and that is exactly what happened.
The Scottish steel taskforce was quickly assembled, and I am delighted to say that my hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) contributed to that, and that Liberty House has now bought these sites, to maintain a crucial industry in Scotland.
Yesterday, the Business Secretary was noble enough to commend the Scottish Government for their actions and efforts, and I thank him for that, but the mask slipped later on in the exchanges when my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West asked whether the UK Government had learned anything from the approach taken in Scotland. He said the only reason why Scottish steel has a bright future is the strength of the UK economy. That was utterly complacent, arrogant and ignorant of the facts.
SNP Members now stand in solidarity with the steelworkers of England and Wales as they struggle and fight for their jobs and their industry, alongside their union representatives. We now hope the UK Government can work more co-operatively with EU colleagues on anti-dumping measures, energy costs and the other issues facing this industry, so there can be a long-term future for a crucial part of the manufacturing sector.
There needs to be a credible strategy for manufacturing and heavy industry in the UK, as the shadow Business Secretary said. This Government are facing a massive, record-breaking trade imbalance. The only way of rectifying that is if we start making things and if this Government start supporting those areas of the economy, rather than relying so heavily on other areas. Imagine what could have been achieved had the Prime Minister spent the last year touring European capitals pressing for action on steel, rather than testing the patience of European colleagues on his EU referendum gamble.
Yesterday, I asked the Business Secretary a simple question and he dodged it. He now has the opportunity to hear it again and perhaps he will take the opportunity  to answer it. Will he publish details of all the meetings, phone calls and correspondence with the EU and with international and trade counterparts that he, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and other members of the Cabinet have made in respect of the steel industry, and any such visits they have made? If he has done the work he claims to have done and if he has indeed strained every sinew for the steel industry, he can have nothing to hide. Indeed, publishing would help to show if he really had the grip on this issue he claims to have had.
I suspect that the Secretary of State dodged that issue and question yesterday because the reputation he has gained for himself in steel communities across these isles is ringing true. What we needed to hear, today and yesterday, was the commitment of this Government to save this crucial industry, not just for the workers—saving their jobs, and their skills and livelihoods—but for the wider economy. I wonder whether we will ever hear that commitment from this Government.

John Bercow: Order. On account of the level of interest, there has to be a time limit. We will begin with a six-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), who speaks for the Scottish National party. I have to say that I thought some of his remarks were more designed for party political purposes than to deal with what we are facing today. We are dealing with people’s livelihoods and with whether they have jobs, and I hope the tone of the House today will be about a solution and what we can do, rather than about making party political points. I also regret, Sir, that Parliament was not recalled last week, as this was a matter of such urgency that we could have come back to have a proper debate, and Members interested in this vital issue would have attended. It was quite right, Sir, that you allowed this Standing Order No. 24 application and that it was unanimously approved by this House—there was no opposition to it.
I know that many Members wish to speak, so I will keep my remarks brief. I declare an interest, as some of my constituents work in the steelworks in the neighbouring constituency and have contacted me about their concerns. This is about not just the people who work directly in the industry but those who rely on the economic benefit from it. I also spent 13 years in south Wales, so I know how important the industry is there.
The shadow Business Secretary analysed the situation very well. There has to be a steel industry in this country, and I think Members on both sides of the House agree on that. We cannot be left without a steel industry, and there is one reason for that: if there is a war in the future—I hope there will not be—we have to have our own steel industry or we cannot defend ourselves. Everyone accepts that we need a steel industry and everybody wants to work towards a solution. I know that the ministerial team have been working very hard but I do think they are working with one hand tied behind their back.
The shadow Business Secretary’s analysis was absolutely right: the problem our steel industry has is the unfair dumping of Chinese steel, and now perhaps Russian steel, on to the market, backed by state-controlled companies, which can put millions of pounds into their industries with no problem at all. If I was sitting in China and I wanted to keep my industry going, the classic way I would do it would be by selling my product abroad at less than what it costs to produce. What then happens, as we have seen, and as the Secretary of State has made clear, is that businesses across Europe close. When those industries are knocked out, the main supplier—in this case, China—takes a bigger share of the market and can then bump the price of steel up and hold the whole world to ransom. That is just what happens.
Where do I think the one hand tied behind the back is? It is the European Union. We have heard from Members on both sides of the House that the problem has been delays in the European Union dealing with tariffs. If we were in the United States, the President would just impose a tariff of 266% and that would shut off Chinese steel coming into the USA. Whatever we think about the issue and whether we think the Government have been poor in pushing for tariffs or not, I hope the whole House can agree that if this matter was totally in the hands of this Parliament, the Government could make their decision and act, and the Opposition could criticise and vote against it if they did not agree.

Edward Leigh: This is a vital national industry. Can my hon. Friend imagine any previous UK Government, in war or peace, allowing our steel industry to go down the tube? My constituency abuts Scunthorpe, and many of my constituents cannot understand the situation. If we had control of our own destiny, surely we could just stop this dumping overnight. This is unfair, unreasonable and ridiculous dumping, and we should stop it.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is correct. That is the problem. I am afraid that the two Front-Bench teams cannot deal with this situation because of their position on the European Union. If the referendum had not been going on at the moment—

Stephen Doughty: I was in agreement with much of what the hon. Gentleman was saying until he got on to his usual track about the EU. Celsa in my constituency is a Catalan company that operates across the whole of the EU. If we were to leave and to lose access to the single market, we would still be bound by World Trade Organisation rules on state aid and other issues. The uncertainty, damage and risk to jobs in south Wales, which he said he cared about, would be immense. It is grossly irresponsible to suggest that leaving the EU would benefit the steel industry in this country.

Peter Bone: I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that his analysis is absolutely wrong and that his ideology is driving his comments.

David Mowat: rose—

Peter Bone: I will not give way again

Angela Smith: On that point—

Peter Bone: No, I cannot give way, because other Members wish to speak.
It is interesting to note that, by the time this debate ends, a cheque for £7 million will have been written by the Chancellor to send to Brussels—that is how much money we send every three hours to the European Union. Just a fraction of that money could be used to protect our steel industry.
On the question of whether we should renationalise the industry or sell it off, I have to say that I have no problem in that regard. A partial ownership of the steel industry for a period makes sense, as this is a strategic industry, but there is no point in doing that if we cannot solve the overall problem of the dumping of steel in this country. Put simply, we must cut out the cancer first. I have not come here today because of the European Union—[Interruption.] No! I have constituents who are concerned and worried about their jobs. Let me tell the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) that it is because of the European Union that they may lose their jobs. It is no good him smiling and laughing, because that is the truth. He should be ashamed of saying otherwise.
If we really want to solve the problem of the steel industry, we must stop the dumping. I know that some Opposition Members do not like this, but the only way to save the steel industry is to come out of the EU and make our own decisions in this House. If we had left the EU months and months ago, we would have imposed tariffs on China. If Members want to save the steel industry, they will have to vote to come out of the EU.

Stephen Kinnock: I wish to start today by thanking both the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), for securing this debate, and you, Mr Speaker, for granting it.
I also thank the Secretary of State for his statements yesterday and today and for attending the special meeting of the all-party group on steel yesterday afternoon. However, although I am grateful to him, l regret to say that those meetings and statements have done little to address investor and customer confidence, which are of paramount importance at this time. Alongside the efforts the Government need to make to find and support a commercial operator, the priority at the moment should be securing the order book.
Erosion of the customer base is the most pressing issue facing the British steel industry. If the customer base goes, it will not come back. Unless the order book is secured, it does not matter what else happens. No one will buy a business if it has no customers—it is as simple as that. That is why I was so deeply concerned by the Secretary of State’s response to my question at the APPG yesterday, when I asked him to outline the specific actions he was taking in that regard. He said that he would be happy to engage with customers as and when they approached him. That is simply not good enough. The Secretary of State should be on the phone. He should be reaching out to the chief executive officers of Honda, Nissan, Jaguar Land Rover and others, making it clear that production of the world class steel that they have come to expect and to rely on will continue, come hell or high water.
This House and every steel worker in the country now looks to the Secretary of State to take action. He should set out precisely, and in specific detail, the representations that he intends to make in the coming days and weeks to the companies that comprise the customer base, which is the lifeblood of the British steel industry.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the companies in the supply chain and the customers, and he is absolutely right to do so. What I have said to him and to others is that we are engaging with many of those organisations—I know that the Secretary of State for Wales is, too—but what he must understand is that much of this is commercially sensitive. Many of those suppliers would not like us to discuss who we are talking to and what their concerns are. I hope that he understands that it would be quite improper for us to divulge that information.

Stephen Kinnock: I fear that the Secretary of State has misunderstood me. I am simply saying that it is very important to be on the telephone to the customer base. [Interruption.] We on the Opposition Benches and the steel workers of this country would like a little bit more detail. [Interruption.] Ministers must forgive us for being sceptical about what they are doing or for thinking that there may be a lack of action.
The Secretary of State talked about co-investment yesterday. Although I welcome the fact that he has belatedly converted to the fact that the Government and industry can work in partnership, I am not entirely sure what co-investment means in his terms. I agree with him that nationalisation is not a long-term solution, but what customers need to know is that, come what may, they will still be able to purchase strip products from the Tata sites. Such security can be offered only if the Government commit to keep all options on the table. Can the Secretary of State make such an assurance to the House?
The men and women working in steel and connected industries across this country are among the most highly skilled and effective people in Britain. The Port Talbot workers are already turning the business around, with improved productivity leading to tangible improvements in business and financial performance. Their skill and dedication is matched by that of Roy Rickhuss, the general secretary of Community, who was even praised by the Secretary of State yesterday.
The surprise announcement that we really needed yesterday was not that of a Conservative praising a trade union leader, but that of the Government announcing an end to their laissez-faire attitude. What we needed from the Government was a list of all the discussions that they have had with the customer base, but what we got was yet more prevarication and procrastination. What we needed from the Government was the announcement that all options were on the table, but what we got was ambiguity. What we needed from  the Government was the announcement that they would put down their pom-poms and give up their role as China’s chief cheerleader in Europe; that they would end their championing of market economy status for China; and that they would end their campaign against trade defence reform, but what we got was more of the same.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State only confirmed something that we already knew—that the Government’s approach has been characterised by a dangerous combination of indifference, incompetence and a rolling out of the red carpet for Beijing.

Andy McDonald: Was my hon. Friend as surprised as I was to hear that, when the Chancellor went to China, he invited it to take part in the HS2 project and to bid for the steel? That would mean having Chinese steel in one of our major infrastructure projects.

Stephen Kinnock: I was not surprised. Let me remind the House that 80% of the Chinese steel sector is state owned. On what planet can that be considered a market economy? I leave that to the House to decide.
The Secretary of State’s claims that he has been working on these things for months simply do not stack up. Yesterday, both in this House and at the APPG meeting, he claimed to have been aware of Tata’s decision to sell before it was publicly announced. If that was the case and if he really knew what was coming, why on earth was he on the other side of the world when the board meeting was taking place? Why was he caught so unaware? If he really was in the know as he claims to have been, why did he have to rush back to the UK in a mad panic?
The Secretary of State also boasted yesterday that it was his actions and his actions alone that prevented Tata from closing rather than selling Port Talbot and the rest of its strip products division. I must admit that my jaw hit the floor when I heard that claim. I was out in Mumbai. I was there for the board meeting with Roy Rickhuss and Community. The Secretary of State was not. Tata has expressed deep disappointment and frustration with the lack of support that it has received from this Government. We have seen delayed action on energy compensation, with many companies still waiting to receive their money, and weasel words on procurement from a Government who got the steel for the latest set of Ministry of Defence frigates from Sweden. Above all, Tata saw a Government who refused to support the steel sector in tackling Chinese dumping by opposing trade defence reforms, while championing market economy status for China. Therefore, this supposedly pro-business Government's influence on Tata is very limited. What really made the difference was Community’s high profile “Save our Steel” campaign, and the fact that Labour MPs have raised the issue of steel on more than 200 separate occasions since the general election.
The clock is ticking. Tata has said that it will give the sale “all due time”. Yesterday’s news about Scunthorpe took almost nine months, and it is still not fully complete. The deal on Port Talbot and the rest of Tata’s strip operations may also take time. Let us therefore hope that today’s debate marks a step change in attitude and action by the Government. Let us hope that they work proactively to protect the entirety of the order book and that they save the future of the heavy end in Port Talbot,

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman will know that his colleagues in the Welsh Government have  spent £80 million on a conference centre in Newport and £58 million on the airport in Cardiff. Does he think that the £60 million allocated to Tata in Port Talbot  is sufficient?

Stephen Kinnock: There is a stark contrast between the actions of the Welsh Government and the actions of the UK Government. There is £60 million on the table, and the Welsh Assembly was recalled, and that should have happened in Westminster, so the contrast is clear.
Let us hope that the Government develop and execute a proper industrial strategy, so that the Opposition do not have to raise this matter a further 200 times in the weeks and months to come. Let us hope that they will stand up for steel.

Richard Fuller: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), but it is unfortunate that his speech veered towards the critical, rather than the constructive. However, he can be forgiven, because he is one of many MPs speaking  in this debate with a significant steelmaking presence in constituency.
My constituency is not one of those constituencies, but in Parliament we talk as one community for all our constituencies, and discuss how different constituencies and communities can reach out to communities that are severely affected when things go wrong in an industry or because of a natural disaster. Let me repeat that the issues in the steel industry are not going to go away. We face many years of brutal competition in the global steel industry. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team can, over the coming months, successfully find long-term solutions for steelmaking plants in Motherwell, Scunthorpe and Port Talbot, that will be a significant achievement in these times.
As someone who does not have a steelworks in his constituency, I believe it is important to discuss what the rules ought to be on what is fair for communities across the country. The OECD in its report last year on the steel industry said:
“In competitive economies, it is the responsibility of the steel companies themselves to identify ways to adapt to changing market conditions.”
We have to accept that many steel companies in the UK have failed to do that. The OECD goes on to say:
“The role of governments should be to allow market mechanisms to work properly and avoid measures that artificially support steelmaking capacity.”
The OECD understands the ways in which developed and developing economies can prosper, and it is important that the Government bear those words in mind. It is also important—and I should like to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise on this in her closing speech—that while we prepare for the best we also prepare for the worst. I should like to know what the Government are doing to prepare support for Port Talbot if all their best efforts to save the steelworks do not come to fruition. May I make one point from my memory of the coal-mining communities in the 1980s? The Government can never give enough support to communities that rely on a single industry.

Caroline Flint: Mrs Thatcher did not have an industrial strategy.

Richard Fuller: No, this is a lesson that we all need to learn. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Lady stops chuntering, I can make a point with which she might agree. Lessons have been learned from the 1980s, and in  communities with a significant concentration of industries the Government always have to do more than they think they have to do.
Duties have been mentioned a number of times, so let us clear up the lesser duty rule. The point, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, is whether the duty is effective. We follow the lesser duty rule, and in the three instances that he mentioned, import penetration has all but disappeared. Giving up the lesser duty rule is not about stopping more steel coming in, but about raising prices on those products. If a 14% tariff is increased to 50% when imports are eliminated that will result in inflationary pressure from the steel industry to other markets, and might be regarded as supporting subsidies from one part of the steel industry to another. It is not right to give up the lesser duty rule, which is the underpinning of the World Trade Organisation, and to take the US approach of zeroing in on tariffs.
On the 267% tariff that America imposed on Chinese cold rolled flat, it was part of the same US decision that imposed a 31% tariff on Tata steel. Tit for tat on trade tariffs does not work.

David Mowat: Does my hon. Friend have a view about why Chinese dumping affects the UK industry much more than the German and Dutch industries? Indeed, Tata is trying to consolidate in Holland. Why have we been affected differently?

Richard Fuller: My hon. Friend speaks very intelligently. Private companies make decisions in different markets across the European Union. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), although we agree on Brexit, as I am not sure that the EU is pertinent to the decision that will affect the steel industry. The Government have taken effective action on procurement and power. Having served on a Bill Committee on the privatisation of Royal Mail, I think that a case can be made for the Government to take action on the pension requirements for members of the British steel industry, which was a nationalised industry. There is plenty of scope, for people like me who believe in the free market, to argue that the Government can take action on that basis.
The Opposition say that they believe in nationalisation. The hon. Member for Aberavon said that he believes in nationalisation, but that it is “not a long-term solution”. Opposition Members do not know when the crisis in the global steel industry is going to end. The global capacity glut is over 30%. I am afraid that if we nationalised, we could not determine when we could return the industry to the private market. If people nationalise, they do so for as long as it takes, and I believe, although I understand why my right hon. Friend will not do so, that the Government should rule out nationalisation, which is a step too far for the British economy in supporting the steel industry.
Finally, may I put the issue of the steel industry in context? During the time that most of us will spend  in the House—I am looking at older Members—we will live though a global over-supply of capacity. That will be true not just of steel but of other sectors of our economy. We need to understand and abide by the rules that have created a free trade system that has been one of the biggest supports in improving living standards around the world. Supporting WTO rules on the lesser  duty tariff is important, as is avoiding a tit for tat war on tariffs. Supporting communities with a significant industry that is affected and making sure that the Government do more than they think they need to do to support those communities are part of making sure that our economy supports them. I commend the Government on their actions, and I will continue to support them critically.

Iain Wright: It is an absolute pleasure to follow my colleague on the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills. I do not agree with much of what he said, but the rigour of his analysis, both in his speech and in his work on the Committee, makes the Committee much sharper in what it does, so I commend him for that.
I welcome the emergency debate, because steel industry is facing a real emergency. It has faced it for some time. The Committee found, going back 40 years, that successive Governments failed to value manufacturing and domestic steelmaking capability as the foundations of an innovative economy. Other countries—and this is in reference to an intervention from the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)—value their domestic steel industry more than we do, which makes them more resilient to the perfect storm of over-production and low steel prices affecting global steel markets.
I want to put it on the record that the challenges facing all steel manufacturers around the world are vast. China produces more steel than all other steel manufacturing nations put together. In two years China has produced more steel than we, the inventors of modern steel making, have produced since the start of the industrial revolution, so even if the Government were doing all they could, those challenges would remain vast.
The Government could do more, because Britain does not face a level playing field in respect of steel production. One contributing factor is the high pound. I know that the Government will not do anything to affect that, but they can intervene directly on uncompetitive energy costs and business rates, which put British-based steel manufacturers at a disadvantage.
In December we on the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee published our report on the Government response to the steel crisis. That was prompted by big turbulence, particularly the closure of SSI in Redcar in early October. It revealed the shocking absence of an effective early-warning system in Whitehall designed to detect and address mounting problems in the industry. Industry had been crying out for some time, with five asks concerning procurement, business rates and energy costs, but the Government had been deaf to such pleas. Had they been alert, they would not have had to resort to crisis management and preside over the tragic hard closure of an integrated steel facility, the second most efficient blast furnace anywhere in Europe, and the loss forever to the steel industry of jobs and skills.
The Select Committee’s report found that the Government recognised the vital importance of the steel industry, but the increased activity had not yet translated into a measurable impact on those in the industry and the communities that they sustain. Five months on from the closure of SSI, with other losses  such as Caparo, and with the decision last month by Tata to sell its UK steel operations, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that lessons have not been learned and that increased activity has not resulted in positive outcomes.

Andy McDonald: My hon. Friend talks about the absence of an early-warning system. In his capacity as Chair of the BIS Committee, does he have any concerns that there is insufficient capacity in the Department to respond to challenges as they emerge on world markets?

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills should be looking out for the British economy, making sure that it is the Department for future economic growth. It needs the civil service capacity to do that, and the proposal for it to lose 30% to 40% of its headcount will have enormous consequences for those early-warning systems and for the expertise and knowledge of the steel industry and other key sectors that are needed to ensure that Britain can thrive.
Today and yesterday in his statement, the Secretary of State stated that he was aware that Tata was planning to hard close its steel operations in Port Talbot and elsewhere, but that he prevented that from happening. He was fully aware of the enormity of the crisis, yet he still flew to Australia rather than Mumbai. The evidence surely suggests that he was left blindsided by Tata’s decision, which again demonstrates that no effective early-warning systems were in place. The Secretary of State should have gone out with Roy Rickhuss and with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) to the Tata board meeting to bat for British steelmaking. The fact that he subsequently went to Mumbai, days after that key board meeting, shows that he knew he had made an earlier error.
The contrast must be made with the events of 2012, when Vince Cable as Business Secretary went to New York to persuade General Motors to make a long-term commitment to the UK, despite overcapacity and loss making in car-manufacturing operations in Europe. As a result of close partnership between the Government of the day, trade unions and local management, GM closed a plant in Germany and committed to build the new Vauxhall Astra at its Ellesmere Port facility. Given the great industrial relations in steel, fantastic trade unions, exceptional steelworkers and committed local management, why cannot this model be adopted for the steel industry?
We must look to the future and ensure that we have a sustainable steel industry. I have mentioned the existential threat to British steel making, but it is important to recognise that steel should be seen not as an obsolete industry, but as one whose future is essential to much of British manufacturing. We should be honest about the challenges, but we should not talk the industry down, which would further hasten the signing of its death warrant. We all have a responsibility to ensure that customers do not take flight.
The Government can help significantly with that. They have brought forward welcome changes to procurement rules that should favour British-made steel and its products during the awarding of public contracts. Something similar was announced in October following  the steel summit, but we have no tangible evidence in the form of new contracts flowing to British plants and mills. Not a single pound of value has been seen. I asked the Secretary of State yesterday after his statement how greater and urgent collaboration was taking place between the Government, the Steel Council and the strategic sector councils such as the Automotive Council, the Aerospace Growth Partnership and the Offshore Wind Industry Council. Will the Minister provide further clarity about that?
Steel plays a major part in the infrastructure of the country. On 23 March, six days before the Mumbai meeting, the Government published the national infrastructure delivery plan. It contains one reference to steel. Will the Government commit to talking to the Cabinet Office to make sure that more can be done? This is incredibly important for my constituency in respect of the steel pipe mills and for the future of British manufacturing. It is important that we move from warm words to tangible action to safeguard British steel.

John Bercow: A five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches will now apply.

Tom Pursglove: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), whose constituency has a downstream Tata production site. We share that similarity, and I share much of the sentiment that he expressed.
The present situation is of great concern to 600 families in Corby. As the local Member of Parliament, I think about them all the time in the work that I am doing on a cross-party basis in our area to try to support them and the steel industry in general. Margot Parker, the UKIP MEP, Tom Beattie, the Labour leader of the council, and I are working closely together to campaign on the issue. That is what local people and those who work at the local plant expect us to do. I was very pleased that the Minister was able to come and join us in those efforts last week.
I am also pleased to be working with Dougie Fairbairn and the Community union representatives at the Corby plant. That relationship is very important. Their feedback helps me to participate in debates such as this, ask questions and put their concerns to Ministers. That needs to be replicated nationally. There is far too much knockabout. I want to see us all getting round the table, working with the unions, Ministers, Back-Bench MPs and employees to make sure that we find solutions to these pressing problems.
The visit last week was useful not just to meet employees, but to get a briefing on where things stand in relation to the Corby plant. A clear message came across that both investment and time are needed. We should bear that in mind as we move forward. That leads me to the challenges that the industry so clearly faces.
The first one is so evidently the overarching challenge of dumping. The unfair, uncompetitive practices that we are seeing are unacceptable. We have heard a lot about Chinese dumping, but the particular concern in Corby is Russian dumping. We have all acknowledged  that we have a brilliant steel industry. The product produced in this country is world-leading, but it currently cannot complete because the playing field is not level. That frames the whole of the ensuing debate.
The Chinese objective is clear. It is to dominate the world market and put other suppliers out of business so that the Chinese can raise the price and reel in the profits. For some industries, cheap steel at present might be an attractive prospect, but the longer-term consequences will be much more serious. Industry in this country and around the world needs to recognise that. We need to respond with strong tariffs and emulate some of the actions that President Obama, for example, is taking, although I do not agree with him on very much.

Nick Clegg: The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling point on anti-dumping tariffs. Does he agree that the issue is not just how high the anti-dumping duties are set? The Government have got the lesser duty rule completely wrong. It is not fit for purpose to deal with the scale of dumped steel from China. Also important is the speed with which decisions are taken. In vetoing that decision, the Government are blocking a more accelerated timetable for the imposition of anti-dumping duties.

Tom Pursglove: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We ought to take another look at the lesser duty rule. It makes sense to refresh our thinking on these matters all the time. However, speed is important. One of the frustrations that I was going to speak about later is the time it took in the European Commission last year to approve the energy compensation package. Those delays were unacceptable. It took far too long. We need quicker action.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know was at the Corby steelworks three times last week. Does he agree with the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) who criticised the European Union for being slow and ineffective in dealing with the steel industry?

Tom Pursglove: The former Deputy Prime Minister probably knows better than most how inefficient the European Union is.

Nick Clegg: rose—

Tom Pursglove: I am not going to give way, because I am very conscious of the time.
As well as getting the tariffs right—I think we should have another look at them—we should consider the market economy status argument that is being made, which is very important. I happen to take the view that if the Chinese are not going to play by the rules, they should simply not be allowed to have market economy status, and I hope that the European Union reaches that conclusion as well.
On energy costs, we have heard a lot in recent years about climate change. We need to be thinking constantly about the consequences of the policies we introduce and the agreements we sign up to. The Government must not act with a silo mentality in relation to these matters; they must be looking constantly at the implications of changes in energy policy. We must always bear that in  mind. I welcome the energy compensation package to which I alluded a little while ago, but it did take months and months to approve. Yesterday the Secretary of State mentioned the package of measures that the Government are seeking to introduce in relation to exempting, and we heard about potential delays in that. I would be very interested to hear in his final remarks today exactly where we are with the exemption package, because I think it is an important step forward.
I happen to take the view that we ought to get much tougher on procurement. We have seen some really positive steps, but it is simply unacceptable for any public bodies in this country not to be using British steel at this time. We are seeing big procurement projects and fracking is coming on stream, so we ought to be exploring all the possibilities and ensuring that our procurement policy reflects exactly that. The integrity of the order book is very important, but so too is the integrity of supply chains. We need suppliers to keep on supplying, as well as buyers to keep on buying.
On business rates, at a time when we are trying to find somebody to buy the Corby site and the others that Tata owns in this country, it makes little sense that we are asking investors to step up to the mark and consider buying plant or the portfolio but then penalising them the moment that investment is made. It makes no sense whatsoever. I advocated a business rates holiday for the industry before the Budget, and I would like Ministers to have another look at that, because this is about trying to show signs of confidence that the Government are backing the industry and that we are all coming together to do just that. It is a bizarre anomaly.
In relation to trying to find a buyer for the Tata sites, I take the view that all options must be on the table. We should not rule anything out. I know that people will say, “But you are a free market Conservative,” and I am, but the fact is that our steel industry is not competing on a level playing field at the moment, and that requires action that does not necessarily go with the normal grain. We should therefore not rule anything out. If a short period of public ownership is required in order to find a buyer for the sites, I think that is exactly what we should do.

Angela Smith: Co-investment.

Tom Pursglove: That is absolutely right. I want to hear a little more to be able to ascertain exactly what Ministers are thinking about that. In trying to find a buyer, we must not let state aid rules get in the way. If they get in the way, we should simply ignore them and do what is right by our steel industry. That is the message that my constituents expect me to convey as their local Member of Parliament.

Angela Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this very important debate, particularly because I have 900 very good quality jobs on the line at Tata Speciality Steels in Stocksbridge. I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said earlier. I will not rehearse the usual arguments that have been articulated so ably by so many Members already, such as on energy costs  and business rates. I will not talk about co-investment, because many comments have been made about that already, too.
Instead, I want to focus on confidence in the future of the steel industry. We risk seeing the industry undermined by people posing as experts in the field, such as commentators in the print media, and giving the impression that the industry’s day is done. It is not done; it has a great future. One example is the TaxPayers Alliance—let me make it clear that this is not an ideological attack—which stated last week:
“Unlike German plants which produce specialised products used in the car industry, UK plants have tended to produce basic products using out of date technology.”
I just want to put it on the record that every Formula 1 car made in this country, apart from Ferrari, has a bit of Stocksbridge steel in it, as does every aircraft in the sky. It is Stocksbridge steel that lands the planes safely, because it is used in the landing gear. It is Stocksbridge steel that makes up part of the Rolls-Royce engine that keeps the aircraft in the sky. We in Stocksbridge are incredibly proud of what we do, and the workforce are passionate about the industry’s future and they intend to have a long-term future, but they need the Government’s support.
I want to illustrate the other things that the plant in my constituency is doing. We have just secured £50 million of investment so that we can make the steel and remelt it to make even purer steel, at the VIM, or vacuum induction melting, plant, which the Minister knows about, so that we can go even further up the value chain, instead of just aerospace steel.
Just to correct the record, let me say that Stocksbridge is not a downstream operation. Tata Speciality Steels makes its own steel, remelts it and makes some of the best steel in the world. We have four projects at Stocksbridge, one of which involves making powdered steel, which is worth £30,000 to £40,000 per tonne. If we get the investment for that, with the atomizer plant that will go on the side of the VIM plant, our future will be spectacular. We must secure that future.
By the way, I make that point in relation to all the Tata plants at risk. People say, “Let’s go niche. Let’s specialise.” Actually, Stocksbridge is very specialised, but the steel made at Port Talbot is also specialised and very high quality. It is a different type of steel and it is made according to a different process—it uses blast furnaces, rather than electric arc furnaces—but it still makes fantastic, good quality steel. We make some of the best steel in the world.
In conclusion, too many commentators are focusing on steel as an industry of the past, but it is an industry of the future. I will finish by looking at the reports recently published by the Government’s chief scientific advisor, Mark Walport. He made it clear that manufacturing will be transformed over the next 30 years or so. The future of our manufacturing industry is focused on adaptability, in terms of the rapidly changing intellectual and physical infrastructure that we need. The steel industry is very well placed to do that. Tata has been completely focused on doing that; it just needs the support to get there—or rather, the new owner will need that support.
Mark Walport also made it clear that we need shorter and more integrated supply chains, because of issues relating to quality and safety standards. Our steel industry delivers that. Aerospace companies such as Airbus and Boeing know that they need those integrated, short supply chains, and they get nervous if the supply chains are disrupted. That is why we need to maintain confidence in the industry. I call on the Government to play their part by doing whatever they can to save our steel.

David Davies: I, too, want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important debate. Steel is a huge part of the economy of my home town of Newport. In fact, my first job was at British Steel. I declare an interest as a British Steel pension holder, although what that pension will be worth after all this, I do not know.
Members on both sides of the House have spoken very well. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) made the point that the fundamental problem is the vast amount of steel that has been coming into the marketplace from China since about 2008, and the fact that the demand for it is just not there. In reality, as he says, nobody can do anything about that fundamental problem, but there are certainly things the Government could do to help. Tata was losing about £1 million a day—we had the figures a few weeks ago. Frankly, the Government are not doing enough to help; I will not mince my words today.
One problem is that there has been a lack of consistency on both sides of the House. We need to ask ourselves a fundamental question: do we want heavy manufacturing industries in this country? Of course, people say the answer is yes, and I think the answer is yes, but if it is, one has to ask why, over the last few years, Governments of all parties—this Government, the coalition Government and certainly the Labour Government—have enacted policies that have made it much harder for heavy industry to continue.
Those Governments swallowed lock, stock and barrel the idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that is causing runaway global warming, and they enacted a series of policies that made things very expensive for any industry that emits CO2, and made it expensive for heavy manufacturers to buy in energy. We have brought in renewables obligations and carbon floor prices, and as a result, we now have the highest energy costs in Europe. That point was made to us on the Welsh Affairs Committee by manufacturers and the unions. Dealing with the issue may not resolve the fundamental question, of course, but it could make the difference between an industry that is profitable in some areas and one that is not. It could also make the difference to companies such as Tata when they are deciding whether to maintain a plant here or in the Netherlands.
It is important that we think about things consistently. To be honest, I do not buy the argument that carbon dioxide is causing runaway global warming. I have spoken about this before, and I cannot deal with the issue in the next two minutes, but there is simply no correlation with the tiny increase we have had in temperature. Therefore, the Government need to rethink their policy.
Instead of deciding to get rid of the carbon taxes and energy taxes that helped to create the problem in the first place—taxes supported by Governments and MPs of all parties—the Government have brought forward a compensation package. The package is all right as far as it goes, although it had to go through a great big bureaucratic steeplechase in the European Union, which Members on both sides also support, and which I certainly do not. However, having got there in the end, and with the first cheques going out as we speak, what have we actually done? We levied a huge tax on an industry, and now we will give some of that money back, because the tax is having exactly the impact we thought it would, which is to punish the industry. I put it to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) that it would surely be much more sensible to scrap the carbon taxes in the first place. There is not much point having a tax if one has to compensate people for its effect.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Will he explain how our industry is supposed to compete with the industries in continental Europe when we pay twice the energy price they do?

David Davies: My hon. Friend makes an important point. However, if Members on both sides truly believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and is causing runaway global warming, they should stand up, take a bow and explain to steelworkers that those workers losing their jobs is a price worth paying to stop the minute increases we have seen in temperatures—although, in fact, we have not seen any increase in about 17 years. The whole thing is absolute nonsense.
We should say that of course we want heavy manufacturing industries in this country. It is not just steel that is threatened; this is also not just about Tata. The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise will be aware that one other steel manufacturer in south Wales has said that it may face severe economic problems unless something is done about high energy prices. Sanjeev Gupta, a constituent who is head of Liberty House, has said that we need to scrap the carbon floor price. As I said, this is not just about steel; it is about glass, chemicals, cement and all sorts of other heavy manufacturing industries. If hon. Members truly believe that these industries are polluting the atmosphere and causing a great increase in temperature, although we have not actually seen any evidence of that for 17 years, they are doing exactly the right thing. However, I happen to think that all of them, and this Government, are doing the wrong thing.
It is high time we stopped trying to tax our manufacturing industries, stopped taxing companies that could be profitable, and stopped handing the money to expensive wind farms that generate electricity at two or three times market rates, particularly when the wind farm companies involved are not even willing to buy steel from this country, and import it all instead. In the Committee, the Minister described the policy as barmy, and she was right, although she was probably being far too polite.
I have no problem at all with CO2 being emitted. I want a viable heavy manufacturing industry in this country, and I want to see lots of jobs and low taxation. I am perfectly relaxed about CO2 emissions.

Tom Blenkinsop: This is not just about the obvious news stories about Port Talbot or the strip industry; it involves all Tata sites, including Aldwarke, Thrybergh, Stocksbridge, Shotton, Llanwern, Orb, Corby and Hartlepool; this is a UK steel crisis.
I reiterate that Tata has to behave like a responsible seller, and we need to remind it of its antics in 2010, when Kirby Adams, the then chief executive of Tata in Europe, tried to use skulduggery to shut Redcar. We solved that problem, but it took more than two years—two years in which there was not one hard redundancy. We need to remind Tata of its previous behaviour and not see it happen again.
British steel is not a basket case, a failed industry or a sunset industry; it is a very successful industry. We had evidence of that recently, when Liberty Steel bought Dalzell and Clydebridge—integral parts of any programme for Trident renewal. Teesside Beam Mill, Skinningrove, Scunthorpe, York, Blaydon and, indeed, Hayange in France, which is part of the long products division sold off to Greybull, are another success story of assets that investors want to buy into. They also demonstrate the European aspect of the previous Corus-British Steel envelope, and we still have sites in IJmuiden and Hayange.
British steel has always relied for its totemic name on its quality and its research and development. Places such as the Materials Processing Institute in Teesside at the old labs at Grangetown, as well as the research and development capacity in Rotherham and Sheffield, when linked with blast furnaces and electric arc furnaces, gives us the ability to control the destiny of metallurgy in our nation. That means we can innovate and create new products. That must be remembered.
I am interested in the notion of co-investment, whether that is in cash terms, or whether it is about an equity stake, a loan, R and D or, more importantly, Government policy. If we are to have a real discussion in this place, we have to look at the different options for co-investment. That is not about the individual commercial parties that may be interested in purchasing, but about putting ideas on the table so that we can actually plan an industrial strategy, because we have not done that in the last five years.
Let us take the issue of Chinese dumping. This is a new phenomenon; it has been going on for four and  a half years. Before that, it was not happening. The circumstances have changed, and that is why the Government have to change the way they behave on  the lesser duty rule and other legislation. There are no precedents, and that is why we cannot stick to rigid dogma, or even analytical argument around World Trade Organisation rules. On co-investment, I have to question whether we are properly looking at issues such as shale gas, and whether parties are being honest about the policy on that, because we are talking about gas-intensive industries.
On carbon capture and storage, the Government have to come clean. They have pulled the rug from under energy-intensive industries on carbon capture and storage. How will they maintain energy-intensive industries—whether it is chemical processing, shale, steel, light manufacturing, glass, cement or bricks—without a proper strategy on carbon? Taxes can be implemented  under the EU emissions trading scheme or unilaterally, by bringing in the carbon price floor. They did that in the Budget some years ago, and they promised to give compensation. However, they did not calculate that if they wanted to compensate people for their own unilateral British tax, they could do so only via the European Union. They had not done the requisite work; they looked at the margins that a Treasury civil servant brought forward and just applied a rule, and they are now reaping the consequences of that.
Ultimately, Port Talbot, the strip and every single other site need time. In 2010, Redcar was saved over two years; SSI had six weeks and fell. We have to give British Tata sites time so that they can be saved. We need proper definitions of co-investment for the community to discuss.

Richard Fuller: The hon. Gentleman is talking a lot of sense. On the issue of time and co-investment, the Government could provide a bridging loan that extends beyond the period for which Tata is prepared to subsidise the steelworks, until a future buyer is found. Is that the sort of co-investment that the hon. Gentleman has in mind?

Tom Blenkinsop: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for giving me some more time. I really appreciate his comment.
Continued production is another pillar. If we are to save these sites, production has to be continuous or skills will be lost. In Redcar in 2010, the then regional development agency, One North East, along with Government agencies in Whitehall, provided a £60 million package. That came from RDA and central Government budgets. It retained people in the area on training courses while we—I was a union officer at the time—negotiated with other parties, such as Marcegaglia, Dongkuk and SSI, to get that site bought. It is vital to look at continuous production, time and other elements of co-investment, not just the cash element.

Byron Davies: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this extremely important debate. I thank the Secretary of State and his team for keeping the House informed—in particular for keeping in continuous contact with me and other Members. I thank the Government for the extremely constructive and close way in which they have worked thus far with the unions and other parties.
I congratulate the Community union, whose evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee was very impressive indeed. Representatives were here yesterday. I am pleased that the Government have kept in contact and ensured that everybody has been kept informed at every stage, because this is about livelihoods. As someone who grew up and was schooled with many who went on to the local steel industry, I recognise how important the industry, the supply chain, the steel stockholders and the maintenance companies that look after the Port Talbot steelworks are to families in my constituency of Gower.
The Government’s interesting announcement yesterday about co-investing with a buyer highlights their commitment to the people who work at Port Talbot. That will help  to ensure the survival of the steelworks, but it also  demonstrates the need to work on a vast number of issues, many of which have been mentioned today and during the past week, to ensure a viable long-term future for the industry.
It is crucial that parties work with each other in this Chamber and go beyond party politics to ensure the survival of steelmaking at Port Talbot. I want briefly to discuss one of the areas that we need to consider as part of our long-term strategy: the use of British steel in infrastructure projects. I know that there are rules and guidelines, but we must think strategically about our use of steel.
The Government’s increased investment in infrastructure means that British steel has had more opportunities to be used, as a result of which our workers, their families and our communities have been supported. For example, 98% of the steel that National Rail has used has been British, while 95% of that used by Crossrail has been. Indeed, HS2 and Crossrail 2 will provide further huge opportunities for our steel industry. As we have heard, something like 94% of the steel used in manufacturing aircraft procured by the Government has been British and, of course, the Great Western Railway electrification to Swansea will provide a further opportunity to use steel.
We need to ensure that our infrastructure strategy and investment tie in very closely with the use of British steel. I was extremely pleased when the Government and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set up the National Infrastructure Commission, headed by Lord Adonis, to give this country the infrastructure to support future economic growth. Will the commission examine how projects could make use of British materials such as steel and support vital industries? Infrastructure projects support local families, local businesses and local communities.
From the coffee shop to the hairdresser and the baker, businesses across south Wales, particularly in the Swansea bay region, are deeply concerned about their future. We need to look at a wide-ranging and long-term strategy to make the industry viable for south Wales. A joint strategy that supports economic growth in the region could consider projects such as the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, which is the type of infrastructure project that would not only add jobs, but continue to support those workers and families just over the bay in Port Talbot.
We must work together. Political grandstanding will not save jobs, provide a long-term viable future for steel production in Port Talbot or support businesses in the supply chain across south Wales. The history of steel in our communities runs deeper than political point-scoring, which causes confusion. Only last week, I spoke to a lady constituent who is a Tata employee, as is her husband, and both of them were appalled and disappointed by the political rhetoric from certain quarters.
We have a shared history and experience of steel in south Wales. Our communities, our social fabric and our lives have all been built or touched by the steel industry. Only by working as one can we provide the future we all want for steel in Port Talbot. Politicians who grandstand in an attempt to ingratiate themselves with steelworkers will not help. We need action, and that is what the Government are clearly providing, constructively and conscientiously. I applaud their actions   to date and look forward to a positive outcome for the people of Port Talbot and the many employees who reside in my constituency of Gower.

Mark Tami: Tata’s announcement that it would no longer support its operation at Port Talbot came as no surprise to Labour Members. We had been warning the Government for months that that was coming down the line, but they chose to do nothing. The Secretary of State was on the other side of the world when the announcement came, and he now clings to the claim that he somehow saved the plant while he was in Australia. As workers at Redcar found out, this Government do too little, too late, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has said, they offer warm words but no action.
This crisis now affects the whole of the UK steel industry, not only Port Talbot. The media have a habit of describing the whole UK steel industry as loss-making, but that is far from the truth for a lot of those plants that add value. Shotton steelworks galvanises and colour-coats steel. It is a profitable business that employs 800 people—quality jobs that are vital to the economy of Deeside. Profitable it may be, but that does not ensure its long-term survival. Shotton relies on steel from the Port Talbot operation. If Port Talbot closes sooner rather than later, it would not be long before Shotton would have to cease its operation due to lack of supply.
The idea that someone can just pick up the phone and buy in from China or anywhere else lots of cheap steel of the quality and quantity needed for a plant such as Shotton is far from reality. To ensure the future of Shotton—I made this point to the Secretary of State yesterday—we need a lot of time. That is a common theme of what colleagues on both sides of the House are saying.
Time is needed not only to find a buyer for the whole of the UK business that will invest and commit to the future, but to allow the downstream businesses to find an alternative steel supplier should the worst happen. I do not want to see that, but the Government have to plan for all scenarios. As many other colleagues have said, we have to reassure the customer base as well. If we do not do that, there will be no businesses to sell to, because the customers will start to leave and walk away. They need assurances.
Shotton, probably more than anywhere else, knows about the impact of job losses in industry. In 1980, despite the gallant efforts of my predecessor, now Lord Jones, and the trade unions, Shotton saw its steelmaking cease and more than 6,500 people lose their jobs. At the time, it was the largest number of job losses at a single plant on a single day anywhere in the history of western Europe. Although the area has recovered and new employers have moved in and grown, the scars of the events of 1980 remain.
On Deeside, nearly everybody has a family member or a friend who worked in the industry. Some people never worked again. The lesson is that such large-scale job losses affect not only the individuals who once worked the industry, but their families and the whole area. Such job losses destroy whole communities, which take many years to recover. The Government have an opportunity to save the industry and assure its long-term future, but they need to act—and they need to act now.

Jessica Morden: We have two important debates this afternoon: this one on steel, and the debate later on the contaminated blood scandal. As a steel group member, I am incredibly pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has been able to secure the debate. I gently reassure anyone who has come to lobby on the contaminated blood scandal that hon. Members will be here to speak for them in that debate later. It will be a very long day for those who have travelled from far and wide to get here. Both of the debates remind me of “Groundhog Day”, because we have to come back time and again to rehearse the same arguments and press for action.
Understandably, much of the focus has been on Port Talbot, and I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for his efforts with the steel unions. As has been said, however, this is a UK steel crisis. Steel making may have ceased in 2001 in Llanwern, but slab has been imported by rail from our sister plant in Port Talbot ever since. Our steelworkers are proud to roll UK steel, and they want to continue to do so. They are looking to the Government to ensure that happens.
At Llanwern, we have taken a cumulative hit over the last few years. Hundreds of jobs have been lost, to the point where we have 700 left. It has been painful. Many of the Llanwern steel workers have transferred to Port Talbot, and they now face uncertainty there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) has said eloquently, steel could have a great future. At Llanwern, we have the Zodiac line, which is Tata Steel’s world-class coil galvanising line. The Zodiac line is doing well. Orb Electrical Steels, which produces a type of high-tech electrical steel, is in profit following a period of restructuring a few years ago. As is often said in debates such as this, steel is cyclical, and Orb demonstrates that. The order books are healthy.
We have had much in the way of warm words, with phrases such as “do all we can to help”—that has been said again today—but what do they mean in practical terms? The asks from the unions have been well rehearsed today, and I would like to add to them. The unions want fast action to protect the order books to ensure the businesses are saleable. It is crucial to the future of Llanwern and Orb that they are not undermined by seepage of business elsewhere before any sale or transferring of work. The unions want time for the sale, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) has said. It is important to know the timescale. Long Products took nine months, and Tata appears to be saying four months. As the shadow Business Secretary has said, we need time for an appropriate consideration of offers. What is the news on the Secretary of State working with Tata to ensure that it is a responsible seller?
I have many steelworkers in my constituency but  also a large number of steel pensioners. Can the Government give those pensioners and future steel pensioners some reassurance about their pension fund, and can the Secretary of State outline the actions that the Government are taking?
The asks from the steel industry in recent times have been for action on Chinese dumping, on which the Government have failed. They have also failed to act on  the lesser duty rule. It is ironic that while our Government have been slow to act on tariffs to protect our industry, the Chinese Government have just imposed 46% tariffs on electrical steel. Although Orb no longer exports to China, companies in other countries do. They will be looking for alternative customers in other countries, and that could mean issues down the line for our electrical steel industry sales.
We have asked for action on energy prices. That took two years to deliver, and is only just coming through now. That is too slow. We need real action on procurement, not simply the souped-up advice note that came out last week. Will the Minister tell us today what specific projects he has in mind? The Welsh Government have done all they can to help with the levers that they have had at their disposal. That has included setting up the steel taskforce to work on practical ways to help. I know from my union reps who came here yesterday how much that relationship is valued.
References were made yesterday to grandstanding, and they have been repeated today. I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that steel group members have raised issues to do with steel time and time again in the Chamber. It is not grandstanding; it is personal. It is personal because our constituents are loyal, resourceful, highly skilled and incredibly hard-working. We understand what they are going through in tough times. These are valued jobs.
The issue is also personal because I look around the Chamber and see my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who worked at Llanwern, as did his dad; I see my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), whose dad also worked there. I see my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who worked as an industrial chemist in Llanwern. My parents met in the steel industry at Ebbw Vale. There are many others. We cannot let our steelworkers down, and I make no apology for speaking up for them.

Marion Fellows: I thank all those who managed to get your permission to hold this debate, Mr Speaker.
I was a member of the Scottish steel taskforce, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). The Scottish steel taskforce was a partnership of Tata Steel, local authorities, trade unions, political parties, the UK Government and Scottish Government agencies such as Scottish Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland and Partnership Action for Continuing Employment. The taskforce was put together by the Scottish Government to help to find a buyer for the threatened Scottish plants in Dalzell and Clydebridge. The taskforce did a great job, as some Members and the Minister may well know.
The handover took place on Friday, based on a back-to-back agreement whereby the Scottish Government bought the plants from Tata and sold them on to Liberty House. It was a wonderful day. We were surrounded by all the members of the taskforce, the steelworkers and their families and friends. It was an emotional day. Steel is an iconic industry in my constituency, and it is  responsible for some of the specialised steel that is used in the defence industry and in the oil and gas industry. It could not be allowed to go under, and the Scottish Government did not allow that to happen. They took a very proactive approach to the threat. They put forward legislation that introduced a one-year relief on business rates for a prospective buyer. The assessor agreed to look at the state of the steel industry when revaluation takes place next year.
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency worked closely with the taskforce to make sure that any prospective buyer or anyone who was interested got the best possible advice as efficiently and quickly as possible. The Scottish Government have produced a new responsible procurement policy, which echoes and, in some instances, betters that which has been produced by the UK Government. [Interruption.] The Minister chunters; I am sorry, but I have lost my place.
The Scottish Government are working to reduce overall energy consumption and energy cost. The Scottish Government were very pleased that the EU cleared the energy intensive package in December last year, after the UK Government were prodded into action by the UK steel summit. Skills Development Scotland developed an upskilling programme to help to retain key staff and to help them to move back into employment once a buyer was found. Those were the very people who were there on Friday. Sanjeev Gupta of Liberty Steel said that the transfer of ownership could not have happened without the efforts of the Scottish Government. He has also indicated that 150 jobs will be created to get the plants back up and running again, which gets us almost back to where we were.
The UK Government cannot rely on helping workers after the event. It is the Government’s duty to be proactive, and to be seen to be so, in securing buyers for effective plants, following the Scottish Government model. Scottish Government phoned prospective buyers, kept in touch with the customer base and, at the same time, maintained business confidentiality. They can do it, so the UK Government should be able to do it. The Scottish Government also launched a manufacturing strategy only this February, which proposes to boost the Scottish economy by investment and education in order for Scotland’s businesses to compete globally. What are the UK Government doing in that regard?
Finally, may I give the Secretary of State a piece of advice? He should speak to the Scottish Government to see how saving plants can be done using actions, not words. As the First Minister has said:
“The steps we have taken in Lanarkshire should give hope to those in other parts of the UK that with the right support and a strong Government there can be a future for steel.”

Nick Thomas-Symonds: There have always been the strongest of links between the constituency of Torfaen and the steelworks at Newport. I speak today not only for the steelworkers in Torfaen, but the many more steel pensioners, including my father, whose time at Llanwern was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden).
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said: the steel industry can and should have a great future. There are so many  great things about our steel industry. It is an industry that has always involved working together—between workers, management, unions and owners. It is an industry that has some of the most skilled and committed workers to be found in any industry anywhere in the world. It is also an industry that I believe is vital to our national security: we cannot have a country that is secure unless a native steel industry is available to us.
We should not forget that, over many years of change, the steelworkers have been a constant. The industry has gone through change—it was nationalised after world war two; most of it was reprivatised in the early 1950s; it was renationlised by the Wilson Government in the 1960s; it was privatised again under the Thatcher Government—but the steelworkers have always shown their central commitment and demonstrated their skills during that time. It is unthinkable that there should be no steelmaking at Port Talbot, just as it is unthinkable that we should not look at this as a UK-wide problem.
It seems to me that the Government have to look strategically at two things. They must look at what they are doing practically to support the sale process at Port Talbot, and at what they can do to support both the aspects we are now coming to: the expressions of interest and the due diligence period that will follow. There are far wider questions, however, in relation to how the Government will be judged on their actions and what they actually do to help the steel industry.
The lesser duty rule has been mentioned a number of times in this debate. Let us be clear: as long as it in place, the duty imposed will always be lower than the margin of the dumping. The European Commission wants to scrap the lesser duty rule. The World Trade Organisation rules do not even oblige the European Commission to apply the lesser duty rule. It is for the UK Government to make the case within the European Union for it to be scrapped, but of course the fact is that they are not doing that. The European Steel Association spokesman said:
“The fact is that the UK has been blocking this. They are not the only member state, but they are certainly the ringleader in blocking the lifting of the lesser duty rule. The ability to lift this was part of a proposal that the European commission launched in 2013”.
What has the Secretary of State done on this since then? The answer is absolutely nothing. There is also the issue of market economy status for China. I thought that Mario Longhi, the chief executive of the biggest steelmaker in America, put it best when he said, about even thinking of granting market economy status for China,
“where you have all the evidence in place that denies them that right it’s just ridiculous”.
The Secretary of State should bear that in mind.
The Secretary of State does have a choice, particularly when it comes to the lesser duty rule and market economy status for China. Where do his loyalties lie: do they lie with Beijing, or with the steelworkers of this country? Would it not be the most supreme irony if a Secretary of State who is supposedly ideologically wedded to free markets ends up granting market economy status to a country where 80% of the steel industry is owned by the state? Is that seriously what the Secretary of State is going to do? It is time he put aside his obsession with Beijing and acted for our steelworkers.

Andy McDonald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) for securing this hugely important debate.
We on Teesside are still reeling from the Government standing by and allowing steelmaking to die at the SSI plant at Redcar. People have very long memories, and it is a shame that it has taken another six months to discover the concept of co-investment, because that has come a little bit late. However, I very much welcome the securing of the long products division, and I congratulate the unions on their initiative in progressing the discussions to such a successful conclusion.
This is the most bizarre of circumstances: we are fearing the collapse of steel production in the UK, but we have the most superb industry, with a brilliantly skilled workforce and an excellent industrial relations history. It is therefore essential that we send out the message that we have a steel industry that is very much worth fighting for. We need to instil confidence in steel customers and suppliers alike that our steel operations are very much open for business. Steel has a bright future if we can get through these next few months.
On development, I am grateful to the mightily impressive Chris McDonald of the Materials Processing Institute for pointing this out:
“Two-thirds of the steels in use today were not even invented 15 years ago, and steel remains a vital ‘economic enabler’ for UK economic growth without which our successful high-value manufacturing sector simply could not exist.”
The automotive, aerospace, defence, nuclear and rail sectors all need the development of new steels in the pursuit of ever improving productivity, and our leading companies undoubtedly benefit from research partnerships with domestic steel producers. He went on:
“If the steel industry were to disappear altogether from the UK, reliance on overseas producers would not only mean the loss of thousands of jobs, but also slow the pace of development and risk the offshoring of the whole manufacturing supply chain”.
We should therefore grasp the opportunities presented by Tata Steel’s sale offering of its assets in the UK.
The debate is about more than just Port Talbot, but that is vital. There is an overwhelmingly strong case for the continuation of steelmaking at Port Talbot, with its advanced steelmaking equipment, its experienced workforce and its capability of making world-leading, high-quality steel for the most demanding applications. Labour Members are in no doubt that the plant can not only compete, but have a highly profitable future. In addition, there is a huge opportunity for new mini-mill operations based around electric arc furnaces, utilising 100% recycled raw materials and offering a step change improvement in carbon emissions.
I plead with Ministers to include all aspects of the future of UK steel in their thinking: the exploitation of, and commitment to, innovation and research and development will undoubtedly pay rich dividends. There is a research and development proposal on the table from the MPI, TWI Ltd and the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. The proposal will leverage recent and secured future investments, which have been used to upgrade materials, research and support facilities in Rotherham, Port Talbot and Cambridge, as well as on the two sites in Tees valley. I urge Ministers to look closely at that proposal. The automotive industry has  been turned round to become an enormous success, and we can do the same with the steel industry.
The timescale is crucial, but it is ridiculously tight. The kindest thing to say is that the seller is incredibly ambitious to think that such a process can be undertaken in such a short space of time. Crucially, in the final analysis, the state will indeed step in. Call it temporary nationalisation, public sector stewardship or whatever we like, but let the customers, suppliers and workers know that the UK steel industry will endure, and it will not only endure but thrive.

Nicholas Dakin: In the middle of 2014, Tata announced that it would dispose of its long products business. It has taken until this week for the conclusion of a process that involved first interest from one buyer, its pulling out and then the work that everyone—trade unions, the management team, Tata itself, Greybull Capital and suppliers, who have also had to contribute to the process—has done locally. The way forward is tough and the process is not yet complete. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement yesterday that he would do everything possible to ensure that those matters that still need to be resolved are resolved satisfactorily, so that the sale goes ahead and there can be a future—I believe that, although different from the past, that future will be a positive one. That will be positive for all the communities throughout the long products sector, including those in Scunthorpe—the site of the largest steelworks in England, which I am proud to represent.
When the Secretary of State was first appointed to his role I wrote to him to ask for a meeting, because I knew that the steel industry was facing a crisis. Unfortunately there were other pressures on his diary at that time. Back in September I asked the Prime Minister for a steel summit. Eyebrows were raised by those on the Government Benches then, but to the credit of the Minister and the Secretary of State, we got a steel summit in Rotherham, which helped to focus on this issue.
Let us look at the issues that we have been arguing about—I have been arguing about them for four or five years now. The Government have moved on energy costs, but that movement has been slow and laborious. They brought in a unilateral carbon floor tax, then found themselves in a mess. It has been more than three years now and the money for mitigation is only just getting into the coffers of steelworkers. Frankly, that does not give the message of confidence needed to take the industry forward. However, I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments today that he is looking at doing that by exemption rather than through the current methods. We are seeing movement, which should be welcomed.
It is deeply disappointing that the Chancellor was unable to bring us good news about business rates. Listening to what Ministers have said in many speeches, I believe that they have been fighting their corner on that. It is deeply disappointing that the Government at the highest level were unable to move on that, as it would have made a real difference. Ijmuiden, a larger plant in the Netherlands, pays less in business rates than the Scunthorpe plant. That is not right. The playing fields need levelling.
I very much welcome the Government’s movements on procurement and the production of better guidelines but, as I have said all along, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, when the guidelines are tested. I point again to DONG Energy’s development of the Hornsea project on the North sea. That is happening because of a very generous contract for difference that the UK Government have given to that private sector company. Public money is invested in that project, and the energy coming from the development will be paid for by UK taxpayers and UK energy bill payers. It will be outrageous if UK steel is not in those monopiles, blades and turbines going up in the North sea. I urge the Secretary of State to work tirelessly with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that private companies delivering public projects also deliver on procurement for our steel industry.
Finally, much has been said about Chinese dumping. The Secretary of State’s mood music has changed on that issue, which I welcome, but the change has been very slow. We have seen action, which should be approved. We have heard from the whole steel community—from Eurofer, for example, which represents steel communities and employers across Europe—about how important it is to tackle the lesser duty rule. That would give a signal about confidence, which is what the industry needs more than anything else—and confidence not just that we are getting warm words, but that those warm words are supported by actions. Such actions should be prompt, not laggardly. Save our steel.

Margaret Ferrier: Although I thank the shadow Business Secretary for securing this emergency debate, I find myself asking how many times, exactly, we are going to have to debate the crisis facing the UK steel industry before the Government take it seriously. That crisis has not arrived recently, unannounced, or sprung up overnight. The warning signs were there. There has been a constant siren of Opposition voices forewarning the Government that action was urgently needed. The steel industry has been crying out collectively for action to be taken. The all- party parliamentary group, of which I am a member, has made countless representations to the Government, spelling out exactly what action needs to be taken.
Although the Government have jumped into action recently, they are unfortunately still not going far enough. We are yet to see meaningful action on dumping. The steadfast opposition to scrapping the lesser duty rule has meant that little can be done to stem the flow of cheap Chinese imports. The Government have not only been reticent, but have apparently been leading the charge on a European level, actively blocking action. The UK Government are guilty of negligence in their approach to the dumping of cheap steel on world markets by China. While the UK is bending over backwards to accommodate Beijing’s request for market economy status—that would make anti-dumping cases much more complicated—our industry is suffering.
What has just happened in Scotland is testament to how a proactive Government, working closely with industry, unions and the workers themselves, can protect jobs and safeguard this vital industry. It is crucial that the UK Government now follow that example, and make a similar concerted effort to save steel plants in England and Wales. They must work co-operatively  with the EU on anti-dumping measures. We need a credible strategy, not just for steel but for ceramics and all other energy-intensive and heavy industry in the UK. Make no mistake: the industry in Scotland still faces challenges, but the Scottish Government’s diligence in saving it has given a renewed confidence that steel has a bright future there.
On the Scottish National party Benches, we stand in solidarity with steelworkers in England and Wales. Despite all the warning signs, I want to see a bright future for steel right across Britain, and not just north of the border. For that to happen, we need a complete change of tack from the Business Minister. Throughout the crisis, the SNP has consistently called for a comprehensive and revised industrial strategy for heavy industry in the UK. The SNP recently launched a bold vision for a manufacturing future for Scotland, spelling out how industries such as steel are viewed as vital strategic assets in the Scottish economy. Although that might seem like a common-sense approach for any Government, it is visionary by comparison with Westminster’s strategy, or lack thereof.
Last Friday many workers, as well as many union representatives, attended the handing over of the keys from Tata Steel to new owners Liberty House at the Dalzell plant in Motherwell. The sense of relief, optimism and renewed hope for a better future was palpable. Beneath all that, however, there is a resilience—we can call it steely determination if we will. This is a centuries-old industry that has learned to adapt to many changes over the years. As Charles Darwin said, it is not the strongest of the species nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. The steel industry is up for the challenge, and the Government need to step forward.
I hope that the change for our steel industry in Scotland is a success, but I want a successful, productive future for all of our steelworkers throughout the UK. I really do hope that the Government are listening today and will leave no stone unturned—the phrase of today—to save our steel. Our highly skilled, dedicated steelworkers need a positive future—indeed, they truly deserve that.

Stephen Doughty: First and foremost, I praise my Front-Bench colleagues for securing this debate and Mr Speaker for granting it. I also want to praise the work of the First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, who has worked constructively with the UK Government to try to find a solution. He has been head and shoulders above in speaking out, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and so many others. I am proud to have him as our First Minister in Wales.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), I want to underline the point that the steel industry in this country has a future, and that future is at the heart of our future infrastructure and defence projects. Just as she is proud of the steel produced in Stocksbridge, I am proud that steel produced at Celsa in Cardiff, in the heart of my constituency, is at the heart of Crossrail and so many other construction and infrastructure projects across the UK. We must never lose sight of that. This is not an industry of the past; it is an industry of the future—if the Government get behind it fully.
I want to touch on three issues. Regardless of the welcome announcements about Scunthorpe and, I hope, Port Talbot, we still need to address the market fundamentals that have brought us to this point in the first place. They affect the UK steel industry as a whole and will continue to affect it if we do not address them. I want to flag up some of the strategic choices and risks we face, and I want to debunk some of the myths that have, unfortunately, been propagated about the role of the EU.
First, I want to mention energy, which is at the heart of the debate. We have the highest industrial electricity prices across the EU. According to UK Steel, they are 89% higher than in other EU countries. Whatever nonsense we hear about the EU being to blame, the fact is that four of the main policies causing the higher prices for industrial energy users in the UK come from the UK Government. I welcome the steps talked about with regard to exemptions and compensation, but the fact is that those prices have come from the UK Government. The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) says we should not do anything about climate change, but that is not the issue. I have made the point repeatedly that offshoring our carbon emissions to places such as China and Turkey would be absolutely absurd. I ask the Government to continue to review every aspect of this tax regime and see what the net result is for industrial energy users in this country. Are they paying more or are they paying less? If they are not paying less, we will face this problem again and again and again. It is all very well talking about a compensation package, but when I went to Celsa in my constituency just a few days ago it still had not received the money. The Government have been far, far too slow to act.
On dumping and tariffs, we heard very powerful arguments about the lesser duty rule from my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and others. I reiterate the question I put to the Secretary of State earlier about the tariffs on rebar. We need to consider whether they are still high enough. He says they have gone down by 99%, but other factors are at play. I welcome what he says, but we need to keep them constantly under review.
I absolutely agree that we should not grant market economy status to China. That would be an absolute absurdity. On procurement, we have to see concrete steps. I was pleased to hear what the Secretary of State said about potential announcements with regard to the defence industry, but they should have happened a long time in advance. We have produced product after product after product without using UK steel. The Government talk about aircraft carriers, but what about the offshore patrol vessels, tankers and scout vehicles? They have not been produced using UK steel. We need to get in there and make sure that British steel is being used. I await that announcement with interest.
This is not just about the role of the Government in procurement, but construction companies. With other MPs, I have written to construction companies across the UK to ask them whether they will adhere to using UK steel in their products, and whether they will adhere to the BS 6001 standard, which uses high-quality British construction steel rebar. There is a responsibility for both Government and companies. I worry that unless we address these issues and maintain a diversity of production in our steel industry, using blast furnaces  and electric arc furnaces to produce different products, we will lose capacity in certain areas. Once that is gone, it will be lost forever. Others, such as the Chinese, will come in and whack their prices up. That will also be a risk to our national security.
The EU is not to blame. It would be absurd if we took action now to save the steel industry and then dealt it another body blow by leaving the EU. The reality is that half of our exports go to the EU. If we lost the single market, they would be gone. State aid rules apply in the World Trade Organisation as well. We would have less capacity to act on dumping, working with others, than we have at the moment. The EU, working together, has delivered 37 EU measures to tackle dumping, 16 of which relate to China. It is the UK Government who have not done the work. It is with the UK Government that I place the blame, not the EU. We can save our steel, but only if we work together to do it.

Geraint Davies: Port Talbot is an industrial jewel in the crown of Swansea bay. Thousands of people in the community and beyond rely on it. Clearly, we are looking to the Government to support our steel industry in its time of need. The Welsh Government, under Carwyn Jones, have come forward, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) has shown leadership. We want guarantees on the socialisation of pensions.
I am not here to criticise Tata. It invested £6.2 billion to buy the Port Talbot steel plant in 2007. It spent another £2 billion to cover losses and £185 million on a new blast furnace in 2013. It is a long-termist organisation. The reality, however, is that worldwide steel production has doubled because of Chinese production. As a result, world prices have halved. Tata cannot compete with the threat of China, which is 80% state owned. We need to hold on in there and do what we can to ensure a sustainable future. China is thinking strategically, whether through very low prices with HS2 and nuclear procurement, or by buying assets globally from its balance of payments surplus. We need to understand what it is trying to do and ensure that our long-term interests are sustained.
Swansea University is investing in new types of steel: multi-layered steel that generates its own electricity. It has a negative carbon footprint when it is used to clad major public buildings. We have high quality Margam coal, which is particularly good in steel production. I want guarantees from the Secretary of State. He talks about co-investment, but what co-investment are we going to have? Will the Government have an equity share in the short term? What guarantees can he give about a more level playing field on energy?

Christina Rees: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could see the current threat to the UK steel industry as an opportunity to change the way to do things, so that a structure can be established to protect the industry for many years to come? The Government could look to other sectors, such as the care sector, and to other parts of the world to learn from tripartite models of delivery involving public-private sector investment, as well as third sector involvement in the shape of a management-worker buyout.

Geraint Davies: We need to look creatively at company structure and procurement. We also need to think about the fact that we are in the process of displacing clean steel with environmental protection for dirty steel. There is a case for considering carbon tariffs on steel and other manufacturing products, because we share a common environment.
On procurement, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon made it clear that we need to know who the Government are talking to and what reassurances are being given. We have been told that this information is commercially confidential, but what those consuming steel to build cars and so on want to know is whether, if they make an order now, in a year’s time the steel will be delivered at the price paid. We need to be able to give those guarantees to secure the future. We need to hold our nerve. The need in this case, and with any business, is cash flow sustainability. The Government therefore need to think about financial packages, so that the cash flow of the business can be sustained on the back of future orders at known prices.
It has been mentioned that half our exports go to Europe. It would be a complete disaster for us to leave Europe, with the extra tariffs that might be imposed. It is important that we move past the referendum period, so there is security for prospective buyers in knowing that we are still in the single market without more tariffs being imposed. Our first duty is to secure the livelihoods of our communities, as well as our strategic interests. It is important that the Government do not give the impression that they have given up and simply want a buyer. They need to come forward and offer any of the benefits they would offer to a prospective buyer to Tata Steel. If there is to be pension buy-out to provide security for a buyer and for pensioners, and if there is to be co-investment, it should be available to Tata as well as others. Tata showed before that it was there for the long run, but because the Government showed that they were not, it pulled out. We want a sustainable future, and it is important that Tata is brought back around the table, alongside other prospective buyers.

Eleanor Laing: Order. We are running out of time, so I am afraid I have to reduce the limit to four minutes.

Anna Turley: Yesterday, the Secretary of State pledged his commitment to the steel industry, which I welcome, but I would like him to spell out exactly why his Government are now willing to consider co-investment with a potential buyer for Port Talbot, when they ruled out anything like that for Redcar—at the time because they said that state-aid rules prevented their supporting SSI, and after SSI was liquidated because they refused to put any British taxpayer money into the Thai banks that owned the site. Why were the Thai banks not suitable for co-investment? It could have bought us time for a sale or enabled the mothballing of the blast furnace. I would like the Government to give us a full explanation of that decision.
In the weeks prior to closure, SSI asked the Government for a loan to enable it to restructure and keep the plant going. It was refused. I sat down with Ministers and  potential investors—a company willing to run the coke ovens and run, or at least mothball, the blast furnace while a buyer was found—who did not want a single penny of Government money, but the Minister said it could not be done. What has changed? Does she now regret not listening to the people of Teesside, the unions and the companies we presented to them in order to keep steelmaking alive on Teesside? The cost of hard closure has been far greater than that of intervention would have been. I want to say something about that cost in the time available.
First, on the local economic cost, 2,200 direct jobs were lost overnight at SSI and over 900 further jobs were lost in the immediate supply chain, from those who provided the parts and maintenance to the companies that provided the gas or loaded the slab at the ports to those who cleaned the overalls and fed the workforce. Plus, there is no way of measuring the knock-on impact on local shops, hairdressers, builders, nurses—as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) mentioned—and childminders. We know they are all feeling the pain. Unemployment in my constituency has jumped by 16.2%. We now have the tenth-highest unemployment rate in the country. The steelworks were the foundation industry for many businesses large and small across Teesside. For 175 years, that industry powered the local economy, providing jobs and security for local people and a source of immense pride, as our steel built the cities of the world.
Secondly, I want to talk about the cost to the Exchequer and the state. It is currently understood that the Government are paying over £200,000 a week to maintain the site in its unrecoverable coma status. Recovery of the land for future use is expected to cost the state well over £1 billion. As for the British steel industry itself, we have lost Europe’s second-largest blast furnace and coke ovens, in which millions of pounds had been invested and which were in very good shape.

Andy McDonald: Does my hon. Friend agree that trying to land a bill of £1.1 billion on the Teesside communities for the remediation of the site is totally unacceptable? I know that the Minister is ignoring it, but it will be a huge issue for Teesside if it is landed with that bill.

Anna Turley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I want a further commitment from the Government that they will maintain their support for the site as it stands, meet that cost and enable local people, businesses and representatives to decide the future of the site and how it can contribute to our local economy.
We have lost our blast furnace and coke ovens, in which millions of pounds had been invested—expensive national assets belonging to the British steel industry now laid to waste. We can add to that a loss to the Exchequer of the tax intake from those 3,000 workers; the £50 million—and it is £50 million, not £80 million—paid for retraining; and the further £30 million for redundancies and other costs. We must bear it in mind that the majority of workers are still awaiting payment of their protective award, on which I would be grateful for an update from the Minister. Finally, there is the loss to Redcar and Cleveland Council, which has already suffered a £90 million loss after six years of Tory austerity, of £10 million a year in business rates from SSI alone.
Thirdly and most importantly, I want to speak about the human cost. Six hundred workers are back in work or full-time training, according to Department for Work and Pensions figures. I pay tribute to them, my taskforce colleagues and all those in the jobcentres and colleges who have worked hard to achieve that, but 600 of over 3,000 workers six months after closure still leaves us with a lot of work to do. What about the thousands of others? They are signing on, many for the first time in their lives, and many are approaching the six-month cut-off point for contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance. Those with a partner with an income of more than £114 a week will soon lose their JSA entirely.
People are moving out of homes, cars are being given up and many are reliant on hardship funds to pay the bills. One worker can no longer afford to keep his rented house to have his children stay overnight because of the bedroom tax. He is having to be rehoused in a one-bedroom place and cannot have his children to stay. The effect on family relationships has been huge. There has been a widespread loss of identity, comradeship and pride in a skilled trade. Redcar and Cleveland Mind has seen a 91% increase in mental health referrals in the last year, and is doing a fantastic job, but many of my constituents are under the radar. One has not even left the house since he lost his job last September. Families have been destroyed and lives shattered. Our town has been through a tragedy. The financial and human cost of inaction is far higher than that of intervention would have been. I say to the Government: you let us down last year, but please do not let down any other steel town in the UK.

Kate Hollern: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) for securing it when the steel industry is in crisis and it is so important to consider and discuss the issues today.
I am sure that all Members are keen to take all the steps necessary to secure the steel industry in our country. Today we have heard a number of options put forward—on energy, business tariffs and various others—but I would like to talk about defence. The last Labour Government had an industrial defence strategy, and at its heart was making British industry and British jobs the first priority in all decisions by the Ministry of Defence. The Government should perhaps reflect on implementing such a policy in this time of crisis for the steel industry.
Wherever and whenever possible, British steel should be used to build equipment, weapons, vehicles and ships that our armed forces need to keep us safe. [Interruption.] I can see that some Conservative Members find this funny, but sadly the current Government abandoned the industrial defence strategy, and we can see the implications of that decision today. Three new ships for the Royal Navy are being built in Glasgow with 60% of the steel bought from Sweden, 20% from other countries and only 20% from the UK. A £3.4 billion contract to build 590 Ajax armoured vehicles is also using Swedish imports for the majority of its steel requirements. The Government are refusing to guarantee that the Navy’s new Type 26 frigates will be built using British steel; the Defence Minister would say only that there would be an opportunity to bid. All that paints a picture of a Government who are willing to talk the talk, but not walk the walk.
The MOD has a £178 billion budget for defence equipment over the next 10 years, and Labour will continue to press the case that that money should be spent, where possible, to secure British jobs and the British steel industry.

Kevin Foster: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Hollern: No. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister will listen, because to avoid a fire sale, which would be an irreversible mistake, the Government must demonstrate to all stakeholders in the industry that they are taking a proactive approach to ensure that continued take-up of operations. The Government must look to reverse the decision to scrap the defence industrial strategy, and they must make a public statement—with haste—to make it clear that they believe in supporting British steel and British jobs.

Greg Mulholland: I am pleased to participate in this important debate, and I am delighted that the Speaker granted it. As the son of a Teessider, I am a regular visitor to Teesside and to Redcar. I was there only a few weeks ago, and to see the site of that plant, now empty and derelict, with no flame after 175 years of steelmaking, is shocking. My thoughts are with the constituents of the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) and the people in the surrounding Teesside constituencies. As has been said, when 3,000 jobs are lost, many more thousands of jobs and lives are affected. The Government are at least finally taking very slow action; what a shame that they did not take that action then, to try to prevent that closure.
As my parliamentary neighbour the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) has pointed out, what a contrast there is between what this Government are doing and the industrial strategy of the previous Business Secretary, the internationally respected Vince Cable, who sought to ensure that we maintained our existing industry while transitioning to new technologies. That is entirely lacking now. The current Business Secretary was so proud to say that there was now a Conservative Business Secretary, but he simply does not have an industrial strategy for the United Kingdom.
What an extraordinary situation this is. The Conservative party, while preaching free trade, is rolling out the red carpet for, and seeking to do sweetheart deals with, a communist nation whose subsidised basket case of a steel industry is producing steel that no one in the world needs or wants. It is wrecking a perfectly viable situation. Let me read the House an interesting quotation:
“Redcar has already paid the price for this ultra-free trade ideology, and Port Talbot is about to follow. There will eventually be little left if the current drift in trade policy is allowed to continue.”
Who said that? Was it the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the leader of the Scottish National party? No; it was the international business editor of The Daily Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. That is a damning indictment of the Government’s lack of an industrial policy, and of the fact that they have turned their back on steel.
All that the Chancellor is doing is saying to the Chinese, “Can you make a little bit less steel, please?” That is all that he is prepared to do, because of his desperation to court China over projects such as the Hinkley power plant. Although China is closing five steel mills, it will still be producing 1.13 billion tonnes by 2020, according to figures from the Library. That is still far more than the world needs, and it will cause devastation.
Only six months ago, when we were seeing inaction from the Government, the Liberal Democrats called for Ministers to set up a Minister-led steering group to look at the whole steel industry so that a strategy could be delivered to save that great British industry. The Government ignored the call, and failed to act. What we are seeing today is not leadership but panic; the Government are doing too little, too late.
Ministers must now at least do what they can to reverse the present position. They must keep the Port Talbot plant operational while a buyer is sought, and they must be a little less arrogant. They must listen and learn some of the lessons of the past, including the lesson of what Vince Cable did when he went to talk to General Motors. They must ensure that we have a steel industry in the future to support the UK economy.

Kevin Brennan: Yet again, we have had a very good debate on the steel industry, featuring plenty of contributions from Back Benchers. I think that I counted 21 Back-Bench speeches during our short debate. We heard from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), the hon. Member for Gower (Byron Davies), my hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), my hon. Friends the Members for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), for Redcar (Anna Turley), and for Blackburn (Kate Hollern), and the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland).
I join others in paying tribute to the Community trade union and the leadership of Roy Rickhuss and others. I also pay tribute to Carwyn Jones, the Welsh First Minister, who has been mentioned today, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, for all her efforts.
Our role as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition is to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on this issue. Our industry has to have a future, and we must make sure that it has one. We are having to do this because immediately after the general election, the new Secretary  of State for Business, Innovation and Skills signalled, clearly and overtly, that he would not continue the consensus that had been emerging and growing over the last decade on the need for a UK industrial strategy. [Interruption.] I wonder whether the new Secretary of State for Wales wants to learn that his job is to sit there and shut up and listen during this debate. [Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. Let us stay calm. The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) may wish—I would strongly suggest—to rephrase what he has just said.

Kevin Brennan: I think that the new Secretary of State needs to sit there in silence and listen to what is being said about a very important issue that affects Wales in particular, which is his responsibility.
The UK needs an active, modern industrial strategy that understands the importance of foundation industries such as the steel industry to the rebalancing of our economy. I understand why the Business Secretary, given his City background and professed laissez-faire philosophy about politics, does not want to use the term “industrial strategy”. He is wrong about that, however. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, I am being asked what my background is. I worked at the Llanwern steelworks for six months and my father worked there for more than 20 years, so I do not need questions about my background from a Secretary of State for Wales who cannot sit there and shut up and listen to the debate as he should do on behalf of his constituents in Wales.
I understand why the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills does not want to use the term “industrial strategy”, but I am afraid he is wrong not to do so. Unless the Government are prepared to support British industry strategically, the Chancellor’s so-called march of the makers will simply become a death march of the makers in this country. We will not stand by and let that happen. We believe that there is a future for the steel industry in the United Kingdom, and I put it to the Secretary of State that that future should not just be about steel recycling; we need to hear that he is committed to steelmaking, and not just to the recycling of steel, important though that is.
We have been asking the Secretary of State for months to make clear the Government’s view on the minimum strategic steelmaking capacity that they believe must be maintained in the UK’s national interest. They have not been prepared to give that information, which inevitably leads to a suspicion that they do not have a view on the minimum steelmaking capacity necessary for the UK’s long-term economic interest. That doubt at the heart of the Government is like an impurity in steel being poured at a steel plant. If we do not get rid of that impurity, it could lead to a disaster, and it will be a disaster if the doubt at the heart of the Government’s policy is not got rid of.
We need to make sure that the blast furnaces at Port Talbot remain. We also need to ensure that the ability to make new steel—not just to melt down old steel and reuse it—remains in the armoury of UK plc. That is why it is important that we have an industrial strategy, and not just an industrial approach. We need clarity on  steelmaking, not just vague warm words. In short, we need strategic leadership, not the laissez-faire laxity now undermining UK plc.

Anna Soubry: I begin by paying tribute to all those who have spoken in the debate. With few if any exceptions, everyone has rightly spoken with passion in their heart on behalf of their constituents and our great British steel industry. It is important that we look to the future and make sure that the message sent out from this place in all our doings is one of confidence in the continuing success of our British steel industry. Over the past seven days, I have had the real pleasure of going to Rotherham. I pay tribute to the wise words of the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), although I do not always agree with her. I went to Rotherham, and I now understand speciality steels, which are separate from the great work being done at Port Talbot; they are almost a stand-alone industry. I then went to Corby and had a great day there meeting excellent workers and excellent management, all of whom are rightly proud of the superb quality of the products that they make.
It is really important that this message of confidence should continue to unite us, for the sake of customers and suppliers alike. Despite the unfortunate remarks made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), there is much that brings us together on this important matter. We all agree that steel is a vital industry, and that this crisis is not confined to the United Kingdom. We should also agree that, unfortunately, the Government do not have a magic wand with which to control the price of steel. We agree that the industry is vital for not just our national economy but, as we have heard from many hon. Members, the important role that it plays in local communities, through the workers it employs directly and through the supply chain right the way through the regions. In South Wales, for example, the industry is a vital component of the continuing success of that part of our United Kingdom.
I want to pay tribute to my Secretary of State for his tireless work and his outstanding leadership throughout this crisis. One of the problems we have had since we were appointed to our positions last May is that so much has been commercially sensitive. I am looking forward to the day when I will be the first to stand up and talk about the sort of work that this Secretary of State has been quietly and privately leading. That work began as soon as we were appointed. The reason why we get so agitated on this side of the House when we have these debates is that we started delivering for the steel industry even before the tragedy of Redcar, which I will deal with in a moment. That is why I ignored the advice of my officials and said that this country would vote in favour of tariffs on dumped steel. That is what we did in July and again in November.
With losses of £600 million over some three years, the situation in Redcar was very different. Debts ran to tens of millions of pounds, and not only did the local company go bust, but so did the parent company in Thailand. The contrast between SSI and Tata is stark. We would all agree that Tata is an excellent, responsible employer, and we look forward to supporting it in all we do to ensure a successful sale and a successful future for our steel industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Tata Steel’s decision to sell its UK steel operations; and action the Government is taking to secure the future of the UK steel industry.

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

CONTAMINATED BLOOD

Diana R. Johnson: I beg to move,
That this House recognises that the contaminated blood scandal was one of the biggest treatment disasters in the history of the NHS, which devastated thousands of lives; notes that for those affected this tragedy continues to have a profound effect on their lives which has rarely been properly recognised; welcomes the Government’s decision to conduct a consultation to reform support arrangements and to commit extra resources to support those affected; further notes, however, that the current Government proposals will leave some people worse off and continue the situation where some of those affected receive no ongoing support; and calls on the Government to take note of all the responses to the consultation and to heed the recommendations of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Haemophilia and Contaminated Blood’s Inquiry into the current support arrangements so as to ensure that no-one is worse off, left destitute or applying for individual payments as a result of the proposed changes and that everyone affected by the tragedy, including widows and dependents, receives support commensurate with the decades of suffering and loss of amenity they have experienced.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate today. This same topic was the subject of the first debate that the Committee scheduled after its establishment in 2010; it is sad that, six years on, we are still fighting for justice for those affected by the contaminated blood scandal. Also in 2010, during the general election campaign, my constituent Glenn Wilkinson came to see me with his wife Alison. They told me about Glenn’s having been given infected blood during dental treatment at Hull Royal Infirmary and how it had affected his life, his health and his opportunities for work and how it had impacted on his family. From then on, I began to find out about the biggest treatment disaster in the history of the NHS.

Henry Smith: Last year, my constituent Eddie Quigley came to see me in my office. Sadly, he has since passed away. On behalf of his son James and his widow Sally, I sincerely thank the hon. Lady for her persistence in bringing forward this debate and in ensuring that the issue is properly discussed.

Diana R. Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. I have received many emails and letters from affected families from all over the country. Sadly, I cannot refer to them all today. I want to set the scene and comment on the Government’s proposals, and I will try to be brief to allow time for the many other hon. Members who want to contribute and talk about their constituents’ views on the consultation.
Governments of both colours have introduced a patchwork of schemes and assistance over the years, but there has never been a complete package of support for those affected. That is in marked contrast to the response to other medical and treatment disasters, such as thalidomide, where full support and compensation has been put in place. I am sure that the whole House wants to pay tribute to all those who have fought for justice over many years and to the families and loved ones who supported them.

Mark Tami: My hon. Friend mentioned the various schemes that have been put in place, but does she agree that the process of applying and getting through those is very difficult, particularly for people who are so ill?

Diana R. Johnson: Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a very important point and I shall come to it shortly.

Diana R. Johnson: I will make a little progress and then take an intervention. I was paying tribute to all those who fought for many years. I think we would all agree that they have been fighting for too many years to get a just settlement for what happened to them. Let us be frank: they are weary from fighting. They want to resolve this once and for all, and to get on with their lives. Sadly, more and more people are dying without seeing that justice. Each individual affected has been robbed of many of the opportunities we all take for granted—the opportunities to work, to have a career, to buy a home and to grow old with the person they love. Family members have had to care for their loved ones, perhaps giving up careers to do so, and watch their health deteriorate.

Jim Cunningham: My hon. Friend has been tenacious in her pursuit of this issue, which has been going on for many years. Like her, I have constituents who have been affected by it, and it is about time this was brought to an end and action was actually taken. She mentioned thalidomide, but that took many years to address and it took a determined Minister to introduce the scheme. If he did that, I cannot see why this Minister cannot do the same.

Diana R. Johnson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. It is important to recognise that in this case there has never been an admission of liability from the Department of Health or the NHS in respect of what happened to these individuals; they have always taken the view that nobody could have known at the time about the problem with the infected blood. I want to make the point that this is not a court of law; this is Parliament, and we are being asked to deal with a clear wrong that has been done to our constituents. We know that these people were damaged and harmed by the treatment they received from the NHS—by the state. What we need to do now is put together a proper support package to ensure that those affected and their families are at the heart of what we do and whatever scheme is proposed.

Jonathan Djanogly: I apologise for having to leave very shortly, but I commend the hon. Lady on her sterling work on this cause. In the case of my constituent Mr Tony Farrugia and his brothers, who are campaigning here today, the situation is exactly as she describes; it is about the complexity of all the schemes. Because his father died in 1986, before the trust was set up, his mother never received any money at all, and that remains the case today under what is being proposed. That seems very unfair to me.

Diana R. Johnson: I absolutely agree—

Caroline Lucas: rose—

Diana R. Johnson: And I will give way to the hon. Lady.

Caroline Lucas: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, particularly as she has made such great inroads on this subject; I commend her for that. Does she agree that it is completely unacceptable, particularly in the context she has set out, that any reform the Government introduce should make sick people even worse off? That seems to be the height of injustice. One of my constituents will lose £500 a month, and another, Graham Manning, is in the Gallery today. They need to see that justice is being done. That has to be a bottom line.

Diana R. Johnson: I agree entirely. Let me return to the point I was making about liability and the need now to put in place a proper support package, recognising the wrong that has been done. For far too long, the Department of Health has not done that. It appears to me that it has been far more interested in protecting the institutional reputation of the Department and of the NHS than in looking to right a wrong.
In the last Parliament, a concerted effort, from all parties, was made to seek a lasting settlement for all our constituents. The all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood led the way in producing a report showing that the current financial arrangements were not fit for purpose, were ad hoc and were overly bureaucratic. The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) worked alongside the all-party group, with the Prime Minister’s office, to finally get an apology made in Parliament and an agreement that the Government would consult on a proper support package for all those affected. The Prime Minister’s apology a year ago and the announcement that £25 million would be made available for transitional support was very welcome. So, too, was the promise that there would be a full consultation on a comprehensive support package. I must say to the Minister that not one penny of that badly needed £25 million has been spent yet, and that the consultation on the new support scheme was announced only on 21 January this year—some nine months after the Prime Minister’s statement.

Kevin Brennan: Like many Members, I have a constituent here today. Sue Sparks has been visiting the Palace and is now in the Public Gallery. Is it not the case that the consultation does not seem to chime with the apology? What is on offer in no way seems to reflect what I am sure the Prime Minister meant as a sincere apology.

Diana R. Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are now a few days away from the end of the consultation period. I understand that the Minister was advised—wrongly, I think—by her officials that she could not meet with the all-party group during the consultation period. I know that that was not the case in Scotland: the Minister there met MSPs and individuals. We called for this debate so that the Minister could listen to the comments of her fellow parliamentarians about the Government’s proposals and then feed them into the consultation.

Rebecca Pow: I have many constituents in Taunton Deane whose lives are blighted by this issue of contaminated blood. Although I applaud  the Government for bringing forward this consultation, there are many who believe that it is only adding fuel to the fire. In fact, it could be making the situation worse and causing more pain, not least because, in Scotland, people may get a better deal than those in England. I urge the Minister to look very carefully at the consultation so as not to penalise people who are already badly suffering.

Diana R. Johnson: I wish to move on now to highlight a few of the problems with the consultation. First, as has already been said, many of the existing recipients will receive lower payments under the new scheme. The Government’s proposals would end all discretionary support, such as winter fuel allowance, child supplements and low income top-ups, which means that many people will lose out, potentially by thousands of pounds a year.
Secondly, most of the current beneficiaries have hepatitis C stage 1 and currently get no ongoing support. They are left begging for individual payments from the Caxton Fund. The Government proposals will provide annual payments for people in stage 1, which is welcome, but those people will be subject to regular individual assessments. That could result in fluctuating payments and reduced financial certainty for individuals. Assessments will also take only clinical factors into account. They will not look at the loss of education or employment, and decades of loss of amenity, ill health and loss of earnings. According to the information from the Government, those assessments will cost £500,000 a year to carry out. Would that money not be better spent on providing financial support to those people?

Caroline Nokes: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her determination and her decision to champion this issue. She highlighted the decades of ill health from which many suffer. There is also the emotional stress and trauma. Does she agree that the consultation process itself has added to that burden for some of those people? That is certainly the message that I have received loud and clear from my constituent, Mike Webster, who came to see me on this issue.

Diana R. Johnson: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. I will proceed with my concerns with the consultation, because I would like other Members to speak in the debate.
My third point is about the inadequate provision for the “affected” community—the widows, the partners and the dependants of those infected. The proposals for widows appear to be extremely complex. They create six categories of widows, with big variations in what is offered within each category. Department of Health officials could not explain how they would work when they met the APPG’s secretariat and have not provided an explanation of these proposals as promised. There also appears to be nothing here for dependent children.

David Hanson: I have constituents who have been infected. I have also heard from infected partners who, because of the failure of the scheme, cannot get insurance for themselves. Those who have young children are worried about the long-term  implications. Does my hon. Friend not think that the proposal adds extra stress to what is already a very stressful situation?

Diana R. Johnson: My right hon. Friend makes an important point.
Fourthly, there are concerns that under the plans money will be used to pay for new drugs to treat hepatitis C, which will be bought separately from the NHS budget, so will cost more. Under guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, everyone with hepatitis C should be eligible for treatment with a new generation of drugs from the end of February 2016, so when funds are allocated for treatment, that means once again that money does not go directly to those who need financial support.

Barbara Keeley: Does my hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech, agree with my constituent, who is affected and feels that the changes are deliberately punitive and exceedingly cruel, as they use requests for changes to support schemes to affect people in that way? My constituent has had to use the ex gratia payment from the Government to fund treatment refused by the NHS, as many other people have had to do. His annual payment will decrease over time and he will lose the additional support that is currently provided. People such as my constituent are hit again and again, so how can the consultation on reform go ahead on that basis?

Diana R. Johnson: I shall move on and complete my speech.
Fifthly, there is concern about the fact that beneficiaries in England will be worse off than beneficiaries in Scotland. The Scottish proposals are far more generous to hepatitis C stage 2 and HIV sufferers, who will receive £27,000 per annum or £37,000 if they are co-infected, which is welcome, but are much less generous for hepatitis C stage 1s, who will receive an additional lump sum payment but no ongoing support. The Scottish proposals have been broadly welcomed, partly because of the way in which the consultation was conducted in Scotland, and the clear acknowledgement, for example, that the existing trust structure will be scrapped.

Diana R. Johnson: I am conscious of time, and I am about to reach my allocated 15 minutes, so if hon. Members do not mind I will complete my speech.
Following the scrapping of the trust structure in the Scottish model, may I seek reassurance from the Minister that she will scrap trust structures in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which have been subject to much criticism? There is no mention in the consultation of any proposals on lump sum payments, which would enable those affected to make real choices about their own lives, such as paying off a mortgage, clearing debts or helping their children. I reiterate my belief that the £230 million the Government are set to receive over the next few years from the sale of Plasma Resources UK should be earmarked for lump sum payments for those people. This is money from the work by the Department of Health to create blood products, and it would be fitting to use it in that way.
I am disappointed that there is no mention in the Government proposals of allowing those who have been affected to be passported automatically through to the new benefits that have been introduced—for example, moving from the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment. There is no consideration at all of an Irish-style medical card to ensure that access to healthcare is as speedy as possible.
In conclusion, we have had a chance to consider the detail of the Government’s proposals. I am disappointed, as they do not deliver what we all want: giving people dignity and allowing them to get on with their lives, rather than constantly having to battle to get support. That means they have to campaign to ensure that their lives do not become even worse, let alone see improvements. They need and deserve action in a timely manner. They do not want to end their lives as campaigners. Many of those who are infected have told me that they believe that the Government are just delaying a proper settlement as more and more people die. After their long and bitter experience who can blame them?

Jason McCartney: rose—

Diana R. Johnson: I am happy to give way briefly to the hon. Gentleman, who is the former co-chair of the all-party group.

Jason McCartney: That is the point I was going to make. I should like to thank the hon. Lady for co-chairing the APPG on haemophilia and contaminated blood with me, and with many others in the last Parliament. Does she agree that the Minister should accept that we have a framework with the settlement in Scotland, which needs tweaking, and the comprehensive APPG report, which looks at the fact that trusts and funds did not operate to support the victims? If we heed experiences in Scotland and our report, we can begin to help the victims.

Diana R. Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who speaks with wisdom on this matter.
It is now time for the biggest treatment disaster in the history of the NHS to be settled once and for all. I hope the Minister will look again at the proposals in her consultation and think about what is in the best interests of the group in question, who have been so badly treated for so many years.

Nadhim Zahawi: It is a privilege and an honour to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). I commend her for her leadership in bringing Parliament together on this very important subject.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this important debate on such a sombre and saddening topic. I speak as the representative of a number of individuals in my constituency whose lives and the lives of those they love have been grievously, unfairly and irreversibly affected by the terrible injustice we address this afternoon.
The Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, has apologised for the infection of individuals with contaminated blood—an apology that is now more  than a year old, for a scandal that is more than 20 years old. When he rightly addressed the matter last year, my right hon. Friend said that it was
“difficult to imagine the feelings of unfairness”—[Official Report, 25 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 1423.]
that those who have been affected must feel. My constituents and others around the country were let down, when they or their family members were at their most vulnerable, by the health service that was supposed to keep them safe. It truly is difficult to imagine.
I am sorry to say that the feelings of unfairness have not been lessened by the proposals in this consultation; if anything, they have been made worse. Lives have been changed and lives have been taken. So much has been lost, but the Government must now focus on lessening and mitigating this loss as much as can ever be possible.

Drew Hendry: On mitigating the loss, I am here to represent several constituents, but one in particular—Andy Gunn. He is extremely concerned by the Health Secretary’s suggestion that the funding might come from the NHS budget. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that would be highly inappropriate?

Nadhim Zahawi: I have had similar representations from my constituents, and I hope that those on the Treasury Bench take on board the comments of Andy Gunn and of others in my constituency.
The vastness of the loss we are addressing today is such that even the ideal solution cannot do much to address it, but what has been proposed does so much less. The proposals contained in the consultation are far from what the victims of this injustice expected or were led to believe they would receive. I know that many of my colleagues have similar stories to tell. I have had constituents visit my surgeries who have always been so incredibly strong about what has happened to them and hopeful for the potential of a good settlement from the Government, but have now been left in tears. They feel let down and fear that these proposals will make life even harder for them.
Those are people whose lives have turned out to be radically different from what they had planned, through absolutely no fault of their own. They struggle to get insurance or pensions—things we take for granted in this place—and have had their careers curtailed. Even worse, they have been unable to have children, or have seen loved ones die tragically soon. These people should be helped and need to be provided with a full and final settlement that allows them to move on, without being worse off.
There remains much misunderstanding about the medical conditions of the victims and the treatments available. The improvements in care for those with HIV/AIDS have been a blessing for many. However, the disease remains incurable, and haemophiliacs and those with other conditions such as hepatitis C cannot take the medication that could help them. We must also properly consider those infected by more than one disease. Those with both HIV and HCV have a threefold greater risk of progression to cirrhosis or decompensated liver disease than those infected only with HCV. We should not misunderstand, underestimate or underplay the dangers of these diseases.
My constituents, and the constituents of so many of us here today, have suffered a grave injustice. It is an injustice that they never expected to suffer, would never have been able to prepare for, and for which the blame rests entirely elsewhere. They or their loved ones have experienced terrible illness and their lives have been changed or ended. “Unfairness” does not seem strong enough to describe it, but that word is the best we can do.
The Prime Minister was right to apologise, but this consultation does not go far enough. When my constituents only have to look north of the border to see a better deal on the table, with talk about public monuments to those sadly lost, and are then faced with an option here that could leave them in an even worse position, anger and resentment are more than understandable.

Steve McCabe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a danger that the consultation will undo the good of the apology? The impact assessment states that the intention of the policy is to safeguard the interests of those who are chronically infected and receive an annual payment, but that annual payment is no longer index-linked, and people have made their assumptions on that basis. My constituent, Norah Tracey, has had to take early retirement because she has hepatitis C, and she based her projections on those financial assumptions. If it is no longer index linked, we are making a mockery of what the impact assessment says and we are undoing the sincerity of the apology.

Nadhim Zahawi: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have heard similar representations from my constituents. Indeed, the all-party group found that the representations were very similar across the board. I sincerely hope that those on the Government Front Bench are listening to these interventions today.
The Prime Minister said last year:
“As a wealthy and successful country we should be helping these people more. We will help them more”—[Official Report, 11 March 2015; Vol. 594, C. 289.]
I agree with him and support those words entirely. I hope that the Minister and the Department of Health will ensure that the settlement for the victims will meet the intentions of what the Prime Minister said last year.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I hope that we can get through this debate without a formal time limit on speeches. The debate is not contentious, on one side of the House or the other, so I trust that Members will be courteous to each other by keeping their speeches to around seven minutes. That will allow everyone who has indicated that they wish to contribute to do so.

Jessica Morden: I will do my very best to keep my speech within seven minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the all-party group for securing the debate, and to the  Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also pay tribute to those members of the campaign who have travelled to be in the Gallery today. I know that many were unable to stay because of the important urgent debate on steel, but many have stayed and I thank them for their patience.
I am speaking today on behalf of my constituents the Smith family and Lin Ashcroft. Janet and Colin Smith lost their son Colin in 1990, when he was just seven. Just a few months earlier, Lin lost her husband Bill Dumbellton. I have spoken about Colin before in these debates, which many hon. Members have called to consider what has been described as the greatest treatment disaster in the NHS.
Colin went to hospital when he was eight months old for a minor ear infection. As a haemophiliac, he received factor VIII, which, following a freedom of information request, the family later learned had come from a batch from an Arkansas prison. He spent his short life fighting illness and died aged seven of AIDS and hepatitis C, although the family did not find out that it was hepatitis C until three years after his death. No parent should have to go through what the Smiths have gone through. As they have said, they want justice so that their son can rest in peace and they want justice for those who remain.

Stephen Doughty: That story is just one of the many we have heard from constituents. I heard from a constituent, David, who similarly spoke passionately about his circumstances. He will not even be affected by the consultation that is going on. Clearly, this is a UK legacy issue and a UK historical injustice. We have heard about the difference in Scotland and elsewhere. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to make sure the UK Government lead on working with the devolved Administrations—in Wales, that means the Wales Office—to ensure that we do not end up with a postcode lottery, with some people potentially in worse situations and some not getting the same justice as others?

Jessica Morden: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly valuable point, which I hope the Minister will listen to—I know it will be heard by the large contingent of Welsh campaigners who have come here today to listen to the debate.
Bill, the husband of another constituent, Lin Ashcroft, was one of the first haemophiliacs to treat himself at home with cryoprecipitate. He contracted HIV and hepatitis C from blood, and he lost his job with BT in the 1980s, after telling the occupational health department about his HIV status. Bill had no life cover, as no one would insure “people like him”, as it was put at the time. Following his death, Lin had to grieve and cope with the financial commitment she was left with. She eventually received some support from the Skipton Fund, but she found the process involved absolutely brutal—she felt she was jumping through hoops to get the money.
We have to keep telling these stories, because we have to remember what many people went through. We have to remember that they need a proper settlement because that can help to draw a line under this period, in so far as we ever can. These people have lost their loved ones, and they have lost great friends they have made during the campaign. As they have told me, it just becomes too  difficult in the end to attend the constant funerals, as members of the community pass away. These people want proper support for those who are still with us.

Conor McGinn: The Prime Minister’s apology gave my constituent Sandra Molyneaux hope that the wrong done to her and her family would finally be righted. Does my hon. Friend agree, though, that subsequent developments fly in the face of that? Sandra and thousands of others are telling the Government through us today, “Don’t tell us you’re sorry. Show us you’re sorry.”

Jessica Morden: My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point [Interruption.] And it is very well received. He anticipates the point I am coming to.
There was some hope last year when the Prime Minister made the much-needed apology for the contaminated blood disaster. He promised then to improve the financial support for the victims and their families. As he said, we are a “wealthy and successful country” and we should be helping these people more. There was some hope, and the consultation was launched into what the support should look like.
A year on, however, the victims have been let down again. Despite the headline announcement about the additional budget of up to £125 million in support, not a penny has been spent, as has been said. The majority of people currently receiving financial support will be worse off under the new scheme. Removing discretionary payments may mean that many lose to the tune of thousands of pounds a year. They will be significantly worse off than those affected in Scotland. Individual assessment could reduce financial security. Widows, partners and dependent children who have been bereaved will receive limited or no support. Lastly, the proposed reforms would just not deliver the sustainability and security the affected community so desperately needs. This is not the package that is needed. It is also not clear whether payments under the new proposals will be exempt from tax and benefit assessment.
What has been proposed is very different from what will be offered by the Scottish Government. For widows who have lost their loved ones, the difference is not just stark—the proposals are poles apart. I will leave it to SNP Members to elaborate on that, but the difference is very pointed.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the hon. Lady not accept that this is one occasion when there should be close working across the Administrations? I offer her the example of a constituent who was infected 35 years ago in Staffordshire. Although he has lived in Scotland for all that time, he will get compensation under the scheme devised by the Department of Health in England. Where is the sense in that?

Jessica Morden: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely right and I am sure he will get the chance to elaborate on that point later. For parents and families who have gone through the trauma of losing a child like Colin, there is nothing at all.
Nigel Mills is here from Wales today and he is now receiving a new treatment for hep C. He has been able to access that treatment, although, mercifully, his condition has not resulted in cirrhosis of the liver. All those in  Wales who developed hep C and could benefit from those new drugs are now receiving them. The Haemophilia Society is very anxious that all those in England who could benefit should have access to them and that funding for new treatment should not be diverted to cover existing treatments.
How many times do we keep having to tell these very personal stories, and how many times do we keep having to call these debates and table questions? How many times do victims have to come to London to lobby MPs? The Haemophilia Society has responded fully, highlighting the weaknesses in what is being proposed and saying that the consultation should be withdrawn.
I ask the Minister please to reflect deeply on this, because what is proposed does not meet the needs of widows, partners, parents, children and those affected. But she should not reflect on it for too long: this has been an ongoing nightmare since the 1970s for thousands of families. The Government cannot bring back the dead or restore health, but they can award a package that will ensure that survivors and families are secure. The apology was a step forward, but let us not prolong the agony further for those who have suffered for far too long. Please listen to this campaign and give the campaigners what they deserve. Please right the wrong.

Sheryll Murray: I welcome the Backbench Business Committee’s selection of this important topic, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on their efforts in securing this valuable debate.
I want to acknowledge the tremendous campaigning work of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. Its efforts have helped to pave the way for the current Department of Health consultation to secure a lasting financial and support settlement for those thousands of people infected with HIV and hepatitis C through contaminated blood in the 1970s and early 1980s.
Let me say at the outset that my heart goes out to those people who have been affected by the contaminated blood scandal, both in my constituency of South East Cornwall and across the country. The devastating impact on patients and their families and friends is immeasurable and lasts for a lifetime. We must all do what we can to ensure that those affected have as secure a future as possible.
I have personal experience of trying to help one constituent who has sadly been impacted by this terrible tragedy. My constituent was infected with contaminated blood in 1985 at the age of 35 and subsequently contracted full blown hepatitis C, which has now developed into cirrhosis of the liver.
My constituent, who understandably has asked not to be identified, has undergone three courses of arduous interferon-based treatment. The last course caused a life-threatening infection that required a month in hospital and some invasive surgery and extensive abdominal surgery.
Now aged 65, my constituent suffers from severe fatigue, physical weakness, brain fog, which means that she is unable to read anything vaguely complicated,  constant itching, fever, sweats, depression and total and permanent hair loss. The stress of living with those conditions on a daily basis for 30 years must be immeasurable. The Government must do all they can to support patients and their families.
My constituent wanted me to highlight her case as an example of where anomalies in support for patients suffering from cirrhosis of the liver have led to financial hardship and additional worry at a very distressing time. She was very grateful for the lump sum she received and an income of £14,760 per annum. However, that figure would be £26,000 in Scotland, nearly double the sum offered in England. That is iniquitous.

James Cartlidge: A constituent of mine—Janis Richards of Sudbury—has written to me, and hers is a very tragic case similar to that highlighted by my hon. Friend. I am struggling to explain to her why there are such different arrangements for constituents across the United Kingdom, given that this problem originally arose under a UK Government.

Sheryll Murray: I completely concur with my hon. Friend. My constituent is particularly concerned about proposals to withdraw index linking from annual income and to refuse to increase it by any meaningful amount. I understand that there is a recommendation to fix annual payments at a flat rate of £15,000 a year, which would leave my constituent with a nominal financial increase of about £240. There are also proposals to withdraw back-up services for emergencies and to withdraw support, which my constituent will certainly require, given the severity of her condition.
May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to clarify the position, and to take my constituent’s concerns into account when formulating final proposals? My constituent previously enjoyed a successful career in the legal profession, but she became too ill to pursue it after her infection with contaminated blood. Her career was, sadly, cut short, as was her considerable earning potential and professional development.
Patients must be treated with fairness, and each case must be assessed and supported on its merits. I am grateful that the Prime Minister acknowledged the scale of the tragedy and apologised on behalf of the UK Government. I welcome the additional funding for England that was announced in 2015 to ease the transition to a reformed scheme and ensure its sustainable operation with patients at its core. That scheme must provide a robust and fair system that supports and compensates those who are affected and removes any unnecessary complexity and unfairness.

Steve Rotheram: At the start of her speech, the hon. Lady mentioned the excellent work of the APPG. It is right to highlight that, because it has shed a lot of light on the issue. In every constituency, there are heart-breaking stories like that of her constituent. I have two constituents who, through no fault of their own, received contaminated blood products, and one of them feels as though he has a death sentence hanging over his head. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should not, quite literally, add insult to injury, and that a just and fair settlement must be found as soon as possible? I  know that the Conservative Government were not necessarily responsible for the blood products, but it is in the gift of this Government to sort the matter out once and for all.

Sheryll Murray: I sincerely hope that the Minister is listening to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and that she and the Government will take action to make it easier for affected people to live as good a life as they can expect to.
There are currently five different organisations funded by the Department of Health to which affected individuals can apply for support. It is encouraging that staff in those schemes have said that the system would be more efficient and consistent if the organisations were combined. Other concerns that have been raised should be addressed through the consultation and subsequent proposals. Those concerns include the fact that beneficiaries are not individually assessed, and that bodies operate different payment policies. The APPG is quite correct to state that the system is not fit for purpose. The consultation that the Department of Health is conducting, which concludes this week, is a helpful step. I am pleased that the Department of Health has reached out to, and sought views from, affected patients and their beneficiaries, and I congratulate the Minister on that. The outcome must lead to a fair and sustainable solution for my constituent and for impacted individuals and families across the country.

Jim McMahon: I want to express my admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the sterling work that she has done in raising the matter. I know from personal experience that she is a formidable campaigner on this issue.
An MP has no greater responsibility than to give a voice to those who feel as though they are not being heard, and I want to use this opportunity to tell the story of my constituent Alex Smith of Chadderton. Quite a lot of the debate has been about finance, and that is important. It is evident from the consultation and from the Government that the driver from their point of view is to squeeze this for every penny they can. However, I want to talk about the real human cost—the everyday cost for those affected.
Alex is ill. He struggles to get out and about. He often feels worn out and unable to live the fulfilling life that we take for granted. Despite his physical difficulties, he is to many, including me, an inspiring man. He has shown great strength of character, resilience and a pride that is the culture of many in our town. His story is not just heart-breaking, but unjust. In a fair society, those who are wronged should have fairness and the wrong should be put right.
Alex and his wife Brenda celebrated the arrival of their son in 1980. To put on record how long the family has waited for real justice, let me say that during that period—from the blood contamination to getting answers, getting proper compensation and, now, fighting for enough money just to pay the bills—I was born in a hospital down the road, went to nursery, went to primary school, went to secondary school, went to college, went out to work and had two sons of my own, of whom the eldest will leave school in two years’ time. In the period  that Alex has had to wait for justice, I have lived my life, and I have done so without many of the difficulties that Alex has had. That justice is no justice whatsoever.
A year after her son’s birth in 1980, Brenda was diagnosed with cervical cancer. She received treatment for that, including a blood transfusion. Separately, Alex, being a good citizen, gave blood in 1995, like hundreds and thousands of others. From the sample test, it was discovered that he had hepatitis C. To be honest, he did not really know what it was. He was told that, with treatment, it might well clear up. He went for treatment, and received most of it, but it was stopped early for other reasons. He thought that that was it.
Over the course of three years, Alex noticed he was becoming forgetful. He put that down to getting older and having a few senior moments, but it got worse and he became increasingly worn out, tired and lethargic. He struggled, but he had the support of his wife and family by his side. To fast-forward 10 years, the family had another tragedy when his wife Brenda passed away. The coroner ruled that the case was inconclusive and the cause of the death was recorded as “unascertained”. We can imagine the grief the family went through, and throughout this time Alex continued to struggle, each and every day, with things we might take for granted.
In 2011, Alex visited his doctor again and underwent a routine blood test. He discovered that the hepatitis C had not gone away and was still there. He went through further treatment, but instead of making him feel better, it made him feel much worse. At that point, he was determined not just to get treatment, but to get answers. His quest started at the hospital where he felt it all began. The records had been destroyed, so he realised that if he was to get real justice and to get answers, he would have to track down the people who were there at the time.
Alex’s mission led him to Bangor in north Wales, where the retired surgeon living there confirmed that Alex had had a blood transfusion with what was likely to be contaminated blood. That made him think, “If I received contaminated blood, could it be that Brenda, who received treatment in the same hospital, also received contaminated blood and may have had hepatitis C as well?” He went to the hospital to find the records, and the records said that Brenda had had hepatitis C. Cruelly and inexplicably, the hospital had not told Brenda and Alex that. It was only when he went back through the medical records years later that that was discovered.
Alex applied to the Skipton Fund and received compensation for himself and his wife, as a surviving stage 1 widower, but that did not make him feel any better physically. He describes every day—let us just imagine this—as waking up with aching flu. Imagine waking up every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, with the flu and no end in sight. How would that drag us down and make daily life feel?
Alex and Brenda did not ask to be infected. Alex did not ask to spend his life in pain and poverty, or to be made to feel, during this consultation, as though he is begging for something that he is not entitled to. His life has been taken away. He wants justice, fairness and closure. He wants to be able to stop the campaign that has been necessary to get justice, and to live a decent lifestyle.

Rebecca Pow: The hon. Gentleman is making a very serious and sympathetic case. As well as people’s suffering, is there not also the issue of their unrealised potential—the hopes dashed, the dreams never lived, the potential never reached? It is on that account that we really owe it to these people to speak up—I do so on behalf an unidentified constituent who does not want me to give his name—and urge the Minister to address the issue.

Jim McMahon: The hon. Lady makes an absolutely excellent point. When Alex came to my office in Oldham, he told me that with his compensation payment he had bought a van to go and work self-employed, but his illness stopped him and eventually he had to sell the van, which had ended up sitting on his driveway. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that people have been denied opportunities that many in this House would take for granted. It is far more than simply an aching pain, or not knowing whether tomorrow will be better than today; opportunities have been stolen from people. Given that it is the state’s responsibility to put this matter right, we owe it as a nation to do so once and for all.
The payments we are talking about will seem quite small to many people here. In some ways, that is what makes this so unfair and so cruel. In one of the richest nations in the world, we are talking about penny-pinching from the poorest people in society, who did not choose to be in this situation and who need a way forward. A £2,000 payment taken away, or a winter fuel allowance, or prescription payments—support is being taken away. It is important to say that the £2,000 payments do not go to everyone, but are for people whose income is 70% below the average in that area. I do not want to make party political points, but it is a bit difficult not to do so when the Government of the day could put the matter right but are choosing instead to drag it out and prolong the agony and pain.
When Members vote in the Lobby of this House, we will be voting after having received a pay rise this year. Well done, all of us—aren’t we fantastic? Well, the people out there are not asking for a pay rise. They are asking just to get by—to have the money to pay the bills—and for justice. The Minister has the opportunity to put the matter right once and for all. She should take it.

Chloe Smith: I am very glad to be able to take part in this debate, having secured it along with hon. Members from both sides of the House. It is on an important and sombre topic.
Back in 2015, I spoke in this House on behalf of two constituents. One is, I believe, in London today. One has passed away—Annie Walker of Norwich. She was one of thousands of people nationwide given infected blood by the NHS during those decades. It left her fighting illness throughout her adult life—she contracted hepatitis C from an otherwise routine blood transfusion at the age of just 19. That caused cirrhosis of her liver and led to cancer in later years. Despite a liver transplant in the months since I last spoke for her in the House, she was told that the cancer had spread and was given just months to live. Like many others, throughout her illness she campaigned to increase hep C awareness and for better treatment of  those affected by the scandal. The first thing I want to do is to pay tribute to her courage and tirelessness in campaigning for others while she was suffering so badly herself.
I will add just a few points to the arguments that have already been raised, urging the Minister to do everything she can to put right this historical wrong. I urge her to look again at indexing. It is important to maintain the value of the payments made to those who are suffering. I also urge her to stick to her guns and make future payments simpler and more dignified, rather than people having to go cap in hand to a motley collection of charitable funds.
I urge the Minister to stick to what she laid out in this House, when she established her aim to get annual payments to those who had not, to date, received them. There are those who have not yet been included in the funds and they currently receive no regular support. It is good to seek to include some of those people in the scheme. Her other aim—not to remove payment from any person—is equally crucial. She has set out her aims to the House and we will all hold her to them. Like other Members, I welcome the doubling of the funding available through the NHS. I also welcome the action the Minister has laid out in relation to treatment, something I have argued for a number of times.
A third constituent came to see me after we last held a debate on this matter. He suffers from severe cirrhosis of the liver and needs the new generation of drugs. We should make those drugs available as soon as possible for those who could suffer less. The dreadful dilemma for doctors is whether they should treat the sickest first or those who could be prevented from getting sicker. I welcome the opportunity the scheme represents potentially to prevent that dreadful dilemma in doctors’ surgeries and hospitals.
It is a very delicate matter to argue about who, among those who need treatment, should be prioritised. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we have to do in this place on behalf of our constituents. Doctors have to make such decisions every day. On balance, I think it is right to seek to fast-track those who are in the early stage of disease. The dreadful dilemma could perhaps be stopped, given such a historical wrong done to our fellow human beings. I could not possibly look the third constituent of mine in the eye and say that today I argued against possibly stopping that dreadful dilemma by arguing against the Minister’s proposal. She is doing a courageous thing with that particular proposal.
In closing, I want to return to my constituent Annie Walker who has passed away. I supported my constituent and corresponded with her over many years. My heart goes out to the family and friends she leaves behind. Every individual death emphasises the tragedy of this scandal. It is a national scandal and a national tragedy. The fight must go on. Annie fought that fight during her lifetime, with my support. Many who have spoken today and the many who are able to be in London today are also fighting the fight. I urge anybody affected who has not yet come forward to do so and to look at the consultation before it runs out in a few days. We in this place can only attempt to get this right if we have information from those affected. That is our job.

Clive Lewis: Does the hon. Lady agree with the sentiments of my constituent Steve Bertram, who I believe is here today, who came to my office last week? He has a face that many would recognise. He looks like someone who has been repeatedly kicked in the teeth. He said:
“Our government needs to act for English Haemophiliacs – generously and properly. Like me, I hope anyone who responded to the consultation told the government in no uncertain terms how paltry, mean and demeaning the offer is.”

Chloe Smith: I will let the words of a fellow Norwich person speak for themselves. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been able to vocalise them for his constituent.
It is up to us in this place to get this right and to listen to all such points carefully. Annie Walker once said to me that she did not have the strength to keep on fighting. Sadly, that has now come true. It is up to us to continue to speak out. It is up to us to right this historical wrong. It is up to us to do that with both finance and NHS treatment. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to what has been said today, but to listen even more carefully to the consultation.

Paul Monaghan: One of my first actions, following my election to this place, was to highlight the plight of those infected with contaminated blood in the 1970s and 1980s. I did this by writing to the Department of Health, following discussions with Julie, a constituent of mine. In July 2015, I also tabled early-day motion 334 to recognise
“the ongoing hardship and challenges faced by those infected with contaminated blood”
and to encourage
“the Prime Minister to implement promised arrangements to distribute an additional £25 million to those affected as soon as is practicable.”
Infected blood is one of the most terrible chapters in the history of the NHS. Many people have died or suffered long-term disability and hardship as a result of infection. Relatives have had to sacrifice careers to provide care and support, and in some cases partners and loved ones have become infected. Patients, families and carers have dealt with those difficulties with immense and enduring courage. My constituent Julie was born with a rare genetic condition known as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which requires treatment, including blood transfusions. She was infected with contaminated blood in 1974—42 years ago—while a young woman with her whole life ahead of her. Following a transfusion that September, she quickly developed symptoms of hepatitis and suffers today from a range of chronic and debilitating health conditions that have rendered her unable to remain upright for longer than 10 minutes at a time without becoming fatigued, owing to liver and lung damage arising directly from the transfusions.
Although now living in Scotland, Julie was infected in England. The liability for the current ex gratia schemes is based on where the individual was infected, rather than residency. This means that the English schemes and the consultation recently launched by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), are responsible for supporting Julie and delivering the financial support she will require.
Julie is currently classed as Skipton stage 1 and has received an ex gratia payment of £20,000 but receives no annual award. Her medical condition means that she has great difficulty meeting the qualifying criteria for stage 2, which would increase her ex gratia payment and provide approximately £15,000 per annum in badly needed support. I have reviewed her correspondence with the Skipton Fund on the reassessment and have found it unhelpful, perhaps even deliberately obtuse.

Brendan O'Hara: I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to raise the case of my constituent Susan Webster who lost her partner, Charlie, almost five years ago, after he contracted hepatitis C as a result of contaminated blood, leaving her and their now 14-year-old daughter without any financial support. Since Charlie’s death, Susan and her daughter have received little or no Government help and have had to approach the Skipton Fund themselves. Today, they remain in a state of limbo while the Government dither over the future of the UK scheme. Does he agree that the Government, having dragged their heels for years, must now act to support the survivors of this scandal without any further delay?

Paul Monaghan: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a tragic case that he outlines, and I will come to his specific point shortly.
On 21 January 2016, the Health Minister stated that the UK Government wanted to increase the amount of money on offer for victims of infected blood by £100 million, in addition to the £25 million announced in March 2015 by the Prime Minister. This takes the total to £225 million over the five years to 2020. As we know, there is a 12-week consultation on these proposals that closes this week, on 15 April. However, the proposed payment schemes have been heavily criticised by many of those affected for being outdated and confused in structure. That is my experience of them too. They also appear unfair.
The UK Government have estimated that the Department will spend a further £570 million over the projected lifetime of the reformed scheme, but analysis shows that the Department wants to cap annual payments for victims in England at £15,000 and that these will no longer be index linked and so will not increase with the cost of living. The UK Government also want to remove regular discretionary payments, including the winter fuel allowance and the £1,200 per child annual payment.

Andrea Jenkyns: On the point about the cost of living, I have several constituents in the same situation. One suggested that pension payments be increased to at least the level of the living wage. What does the hon. Gentleman think of that idea?

Paul Monaghan: I would absolutely support that suggestion. I would also note that many victims in England now face cuts of up to £7,000 a year, together with cumulative losses from the freezing of six annual payments to patients of £15,000 a year, time-limited support for partners and spouses after patients’ deaths, and the ending of help for the children and parents of those affected. Moreover, victims will no longer have access to grants for support with such things as mobility issues and modifications to property; nor will they have access to free expert advice.
The Haemophilia Society, which campaigns on behalf of victims of this scandal, has said that it has deep concerns about the proposals for England. It compared the proposals for England to those in Scotland, saying:
“These concerns are compounded by the fact that similar proposals in Scotland offer more generous payments to its affected community. There is a risk that, if both sets of proposals are accepted (as they currently stand), affected people in England will receive much lower incomes that those in Scotland.”
The Scottish Government have already provided £32 million over the last 10 years to the current UK-wide schemes, so they are already committed to support those infected in Scotland. Nevertheless, on 18 March this year, the Scottish Government announced a substantial package of increased financial support for those affected by infected NHS blood and blood products in Scotland, amounting to an additional £20 million over the next three years alone. The new Scottish scheme will see annual payments for those with HIV and advanced hep C nearly double from £15,000 to £27,000 a year, and those affected with both HIV and hep C will have their annual payments increase from £30,000 to £37,000.

Peter Bottomley: This is a pure inquiry. Would it have been open to the Scottish authorities to say that the increased levels of compensation would be available to all those affected within Scotland rather than on the basis of where people had acquired the infection?

Paul Monaghan: I do not think that would be possible because it would be an admission of liability, and these are ex gratia schemes with no liability in response to the payment.
In addition to the measures I have explained so far, a new support and assistance grant scheme will be established in Scotland to administer and provide more flexible grants to cover additional needs. Scottish Government funding for this scheme will increase from £300,000 to £1 million a year. In real terms, the new arrangements will mean additional financial support is available for all categories of infected people and their dependants in Scotland. In Scotland, we are clear that this is not the end of the process and that there will be ongoing work with patient groups on this matter.
In overwhelming contrast to the Scottish Government, the UK Government are proposing to cut funding for victims of this scandal, leaving vulnerable people thousands of pounds a year worse off. It is extremely disappointing that the UK Government do not think it important to support those who were infected in England, and it is clear that the proposed cuts demonstrate that the UK Government’s priorities lie with austerity, not with the victims of this terrible scandal. It is time for the UK Government to support those whose lives have been ruined by this unprecedented scandal. For people such as Julie, anything less literally heaps insult on injury.

Peter Heaton-Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on securing this debate and on the valuable work that her all-party parliamentary group is doing in this area.
All Members, I am sure, receive a huge number of letters and emails from constituents, and hold face-to-face meetings with them on a huge range of issues. Just occasionally, an email arrives that has the power to stop us in our tracks, simply demanding the wider attention of the whole House. On 2 June last year, just four weeks after being elected to this place for the first time, I received just such an email. It came from my constituent Sue Threakall, from Barnstaple. Mrs Threakall is with us in the Gallery this afternoon, one of many who have travelled long distances to be here today. I pay tribute to them all.
With her permission and with the leave of the House, I would like to read a short extract from the email I received from Mrs Threakall, which sums up better than I could the real human impact of this national tragedy:
“my late husband was a haemophiliac who”,
in the 1980s,
“was given contaminated blood and…died in 1991 with AIDS, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. His death ripped my family apart and to this day the effects are still there.”
Her children lead
“compromised lives compared to the ones they should have led. I have severe financial difficulties to this day, despite doing everything possible to help myself recover from a wrecked career as a…teacher, followed by retirement at 50 on a tiny pension. Since then I have worked in hospitals, but following three major surgeries in seven years have now more or less retired.
I have been campaigning for thirty years for truth and justice”.
Those are two crucial elements that we must discuss today: truth and justice.

Anna Turley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s generosity in giving way, and I share his concern about the impact on spouses. My constituent Mr Thomas Farrell was given 11 units of contaminated blood in 1989, and tested positive for hepatitis C nine years later. One of his biggest fears is that his wife will not have the security of knowing that she can pay the mortgage should he pass away before her. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that bereaved partners and spouses should have security and proper financial support for the rest of their life?

Peter Heaton-Jones: I absolutely agree that we must look beyond those whose are immediately affected personally by the health effects of contaminated blood, and take account of the effects on their wider families and loved ones. I shall say more about that later.
Truth and justice are what this is all about, and I believe that we have reached a stage at which we really could deliver both. The Government’s consultation is under way; the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), Friend made her announcement in January; and there is now a groundswell of public opinion. Those three factors mean that we are at a crossroads, and we may never have this opportunity again. Campaigners acknowledge that since 2010, the Government have listened. We have made progress—more progress than we have made in the past.
This, however, is the position: the Government’s consultation is due to close in just three days’ time, and it is clear that there is still a great deal of unhappiness  with the options on the table. The status quo—the existing scheme, with its confusing and inadequate provision—is not acceptable, but neither is the alternative, which would seem to fail to tackle the fundamental problem of fair financial provision both for those who received the contaminated blood and are living with the health consequences and, importantly, the families and loved ones who care for them or grieve for them.
We must be realistic. Like nearly every decision that we make in this place, this does in the end come down to money, and we know that money is tight. It would be unrealistic, indeed irresponsible, to stand here today and ask for a blank cheque to be written, or for funds to be taken from equally worthwhile projects elsewhere in the health budget. What I appeal for today from the Government—on behalf of my constituent, and other constituents who are with us—are two commodities that are perhaps even more precious: time and understanding. I ask for time for these people, including my constituent, to have their cases adequately heard by the Government, and not to be bounced into accepting one of two options, neither of which they believe to be fair or adequate.

Mike Kane: The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech on behalf of his constituent. Does he agree that it would be a tragedy if, at the end of the consultation, some of the victims were worse off as a result of it?

Peter Heaton-Jones: None of us, of course, would want that. We must wait to hear what the Minister says at the end of the debate, but I am sure that we are all aiming for the same result. The least that the people who have fought so hard for truth and justice deserve is a fair hearing, but for many, time is running out. They find themselves in the heartbreaking position of facing the inevitable health consequences of what was, after all, an historical failure of the national health service.

Rebecca Pow: I, too, massively applaud the work of the all-party parliamentary group, which has been working for so long. My hon. Friend has mentioned time. I have just received a text from one of my constituents, who does not want to be named, but who points out that the stark reality is that those infected are dying at the rate of one a month. For these people, time really is of the essence.

Peter Heaton-Jones: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I believe that there was an informal time limit of seven minutes, and the hon. Gentleman has a minute to go. If we cannot get it down to six minutes, I will have to impose a formal time limit, which I do not want to do.

Peter Heaton-Jones: I understand, Mr Deputy Speaker; thank you.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) makes the perfectly reasonable point that time is running out, and that these people find themselves in an impossible position. I do not seek to extend this process unnecessarily, but the 15 April deadline cannot and must not be the end of the story. It cannot be a deadline after which a decision is simply handed  down. Let us give a proper, respectful hearing to those who believe that an injustice is about to be done, and let us try to put this right.
I also said that we needed understanding. These events have devastated the lives of many people, including my constituent, Sue Threakall. I shall end as I began, by quoting her words in an email. She says:
“At the moment I haven’t the slightest idea how I will be able to manage and am in complete despair. Over the last week it has occurred to me several times that after fighting this for over three decades…I really don’t want to carry on.”
I say to my constituent and to the other campaigners who are with us today: do carry on, and do keep telling us what we need to know. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who has just left her place, said, it is by hearing the true life stories of those who have been affected that my hon. Friend the Minister, who I know is listening, will be able to take very careful note. Let us do all we can to deliver what my constituent and many thousands of others want and deserve: truth, fairness and justice.

Gerald Kaufman: Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to join other Members of Parliament in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her work on this matter, which, among other things, has enabled us to take part in this debate.
Everything that we deal with in this House of Commons is about people, whether they are Syrian refugees or steelworkers from south Wales. Whatever we do deals with the lives of people, and we are somehow led to believe that the larger the number of people involved, the more important the issue will be. That is a basic problem about this issue. There is not, sub specie aeternitatis, a huge number of people who are affected by blood contamination, but those involved have been affected in a way that damages their lives every minute of every day. I would not have known about this issue if it were not for a person in my constituency called Mohibul Islam, who has been in contact with me year after year—I now have a file of correspondence so enormous that I could not bring it into the Chamber—and who has asked me to participate in the debate and to ask a specific question.
Let us be clear about this: I do not accuse the Government of being heartless. It would be easy to do that, given the suffering of the people involved. However, the Government do not seem to grasp the fact that a process that should have been followed to produce an effective outcome has been left in such a way that we still cannot believe that we are going to get a result. We still cannot believe that the outcome will be known to, and potentially satisfy, the relatively small number of our constituents who are suffering in this way. Also, when I say that this involves a small number of people, I must stress that it occupies 100% of their lives.
It may well be that every Member in this Chamber has in her or his family someone who suffers from some deeply upsetting illness, but unless one knows about blood contamination, it passes us by. The Government have not given the matter the active attention that it deserves, and that may simply be because the number of people affected is relatively small. This is not in any way  an accusation against the Government—I will make accusations against them when I need to—but there are no votes in this, because the number is small. However, the numbers suffering cannot be pinned down by statistics. Unless any of us in the Chamber have actually suffered from blood contamination or its consequences, we do not really know about it, even if we are told.
Mohibul Islam has asked me to put a specific question to the Minister, and I will ask her to respond to him, so that I can let him know that his voice has been heard in the House of Commons. He wants to know why, instead of raising payments and bringing them above the poverty threshold, the payment for the dual-infected group is being cut substantially, leading to some people being £7,000 a year worse off. For someone with tax relationships with Panama, £7,000 may not seem like a large sum of money, but it is everything to somebody who needs the money and goes day after day without any prospect of alleviation.

Barbara Keeley: We have heard Government Members say that money is tight, but like my right hon. Friend’s constituent, my constituent Mr Dave Gort has had to cover the cost of his own treatment and is facing a decrease in the annual payment. He will also lose additional support such as winter fuel payments and the prescription prepayment programme. Those affected also have issues with insurance, for example, with premiums being loaded even when the virus has cleared. I support my right hon. Friend’s points about hardship and the hit that the change represents.

Gerald Kaufman: What my hon. Friend says is remarkably valid and I concur with it. As a consequence of what she and other Members have said and, most of all, of my communications from Mohibul Islam, I want to know why the Government cannot at least provide parity with Scotland. That would not solve the problem, but it would to some extent alleviate the financial consequences.
As I said, every one of us in this House, either personally or through someone in our family, has suffered the effects of some kind of health-related problem. In my case, my brother and one of my sisters died in suffering after a long experience of Alzheimer’s disease. There are many ways in which the human condition can be hurtful or troublesome. I am not looking for a solution—frankly, I do not believe that there is a solution in health terms—but I am looking for the Government to show that they care, that there will be an outcome, and that that outcome will, as a minimum, alleviate the anxieties and concerns of those who live with this affliction every single day.

Kevin Foster: It is a pleasure to follow the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), and to be able to follow on from all the work done to bring this debate to the Floor of the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on securing it; it was a pleasure for me, as a member of the Backbench Business Committee, to support the proposal that this debate be held today.
Contaminated blood and the impact on victims was one of the first issues to come into my inbox after I was elected. Someone came to my surgery who had had a  condition but had been otherwise healthy, only to find that they were to have decades of pain and disability because of the treatment they had for that condition—that is almost heartbreaking. Virtually all their life prospects have disappeared because of a treatment they received that they thought would make them better.
It is worth examining the scale of this disaster in our NHS system. We are talking about 4,700 people with bleeding disorders and 28,000 other people becoming infected with hepatitis C; and 1,200 with bleeding disorders and 100 other individuals getting HIV. Of course these people were getting that condition at a time when the medical understanding of it was very limited and the life expectancy was incredibly short. Thankfully, many people have benefited from the advances in medical science since 1985, which have allowed them to keep living, but they still face all the issues that come with that illness and—let us be candid—the stigma that still comes with it from those ignorant about what can cause it.
The issue is about looking at the time that has elapsed. I am sure that, like me, my predecessor, Adrian Sanders, who pursued a number of cases diligently during his time as the MP for Torbay, would not have expected that after 18 years his successor would still be talking about this issue and still be having to speak up for the constituents affected by this scandal, at least one of whom is in the Gallery today. We know that a patchwork of five schemes is in place, and reference has been made to that. To be fair, £390 million has already been paid out, but the impact on these people has been so devastating that it is right that we are looking again at what the appropriate level of compensation is.
It was appropriate that last year the Prime Minister issued an apology. That is something so simple, but it took until 2015 for it to happen. I agree that we are not in a court of law today, but it is right that we seek to provide some form of justice to those who for so long have found themselves on the receiving end of life-changing conditions.

Bob Stewart: We have used the word “justice” all the way through this debate. I have listened to it all and I was not intending to intervene, but I must say that in fact there is no justice we can give people who have contaminated blood—that has been taken away from them. All we can do is give them the best possible help, financially and in care terms. They will never get justice, and it is improper to suggest they can—we cannot do it, it is too late, they have had that taken away and money will not compensate.

Kevin Foster: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for such a thoughtful intervention. We cannot give them justice; we cannot restore them back to where they were before the impact of this scandal, but we can compensate them. We can try to mitigate the impact and give them a life that is appropriate, as best we can. Today’s debate is right to focus on that.

Flick Drummond: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kevin Foster: Briefly, but I am conscious of Mr Deputy Speaker’s guidance.

Flick Drummond: My hon. Friend has mentioned some of the impacts, and I think there is an impact relating to housing. A lot of people with very low incomes are finding it difficult to access reasonable housing, including my constituent Sally Vickers, who has been told by Portsmouth City Council that she cannot be rehoused, despite a threatening condition caused by receiving contaminated blood. Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Minister needs to advise local authorities to make sure that the housing is adequate for such people?

Kevin Foster: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. This is also about making sure local authorities are aware of the support packages and the possible impact on benefit calculations. During my time as a councillor in Coventry I was approached by someone who was constantly being invited in for a fraud interview because they were receiving funds from one of the trusts. Those trained in these trusts have mostly retired now because of the time that has elapsed since this was put in place; the numbers involved are very small so new members of staff would not be so familiar with this. To be fair, that particular incident was resolved.
Initially, my constituents were pleased to hear that a consultation was going to happen and that £25 million would be available. They waited for it, but when it was announced it is safe to say that they were extremely disappointed. The problems, which have already been listed, include the fact that recipients could receive less than they do now, as some of the top-ups and support may be abolished. Some of the support could rely on assessments. I say that tentatively, as I have looked at this issue of repeated assessments. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have looked at the work of the Department for Work and Pensions, and there is no great enthusiasm to see more people going through an annual assessment, particularly when, for many of these people, only a miracle cure will make any form of difference. The conditions are lifelong and permanent. They have been with them for decades and are not likely to be something from which they will recover.
I hope that the Government will relook at the proposals they put out for consultation, and take on board the comments from the all-party group, which have been put forward in a constructive and genuinely helpful way. I ask the Minister to take a view on what is being done in Scotland, and to explain why the UK Government do not think that the Scottish model would be appropriate here. If there is a particular reason, let us hear it. For me, it seems that the model has been welcomed and could be taken forward here.
I do hope that, after 30 years, we can finally take a step forward, deliver justice and ensure that people get the compensation for which they have waited so long. They need a resolution to these matters, which have been going on for decades.

Jonathan Reynolds: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate today and to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing such an important issue to be brought before the House. I add my praise to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her  outstanding leadership. As a member of the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, I feel strongly that it is right that the House consider this matter and that more should be done. I also feel that it would be unconscionable if any reform that did come about actually reduced the support currently being received by people who have been victims of this appalling episode in the history of our public health system.
As we have heard, between the mid-1970s and the late 1980s, 4,670 people with haemophilia were infected with hepatitis C through their NHS treatment and the transfusion of contaminated blood. Of those, 1,243 people with haemophilia were also exposed to HIV. Almost half of those infected with hepatitis C, and almost three quarters co-infected with HIV and hepatitis C, have since died. Many have experienced poverty and discrimination as a result of their infections. For so many of the victims, the simplest of daily tasks can become difficult and, in some situations, frightening. Such a scenario can be seen in the life of one of my own constituents, Mr Michael Gee, with whom I have worked on this issue since I first met him at a constituency surgery in 2013. Alongside many other victims, Michael has travelled to be here today to listen to this debate. The determination to be here is testament to the importance of these decisions. I pay tribute to Michael and to everyone else who is here today and who has been placed in a similar situation.
As a young boy, Michael was accidentally scalded when reaching for a pan of boiling water on the cooker while his mother was making dinner. Rushed to hospital, he underwent a number of blood transfusions. Due to the shortage of blood donors, the Government of the day had purchased blood supplies from abroad, and one of the bags used contained contaminated blood.
Michael was diagnosed with hepatitis C in 1987, and it is a condition that he has had to live with throughout his adult life. Hepatitis C causes chronic fatigue, organ damage as well as significant cognitive impairment and damage to the auto-immune system causing arthritis and muscle problems. There are also a whole range of significant practical everyday problems. Hepatitis C sufferers, for instance, struggle to get mortgages or proper insurance.
Michael is now a father, and due to the nature of his condition he is restricted in his interaction with his own child. Terrified that an open wound could transfer his virus, he often has to wear gloves to put his mind at ease, and keep the safety of his children paramount. Such a scenario is difficult to comprehend for any of us who are parents and we would not wish to see anyone placed in that position.
I do not think that any Government have done enough on this matter. In 2009, the Department of Health reviewed the support for the victims of the disaster, but 80% of those who were infected with hepatitis C were excluded from the financial help. That was on the grounds that their illness was considered to be at stage 1. They had been categorised as stage 1 because they could not prove a certain stage of liver disease. To make things even more unfair, there were serious differences in the help given to people with HIV and people with hepatitis C. One of the biggest and most obvious anomalies was the fact that if someone with HIV died their spouse  could apply for ongoing financial support, albeit means-tested, but if someone with hepatitis C died their partner received nothing.
The entire support system is inadequate, and is administered by a multitude of charitable trusts with different rules and criteria, which makes it harder to access. In 2016, the Government are in danger of repeating the errors of the past and once again letting down the victims and their families. Last month, victims of the disaster received letters from the Department of Health consulting them on reforms that could leave some of them up to £7,000 a year worse off. This is not acceptable, and it must not be allowed to happen.

Stephen Kinnock: My hon. Friend mentioned the impact on families. My constituents, David and Vincent Farrugia, tragically lost their father Barry after he contracted HIV and hepatitis C from contaminated blood. The families and the bereaved are not included in the consultation—there is no provision for children, dependants or bereaved families. Does my hon. Friend agree that children and dependants who are now adults should be included in the consultation?

Jonathan Reynolds: I agree with my hon. Friend. When we learn the details of these cases it is clear that people’s entire lives have been grievously affected, and it is only right that everyone associated with those injured parties is given the opportunity to take part in the remedy that is required. I would point out to the Department of Health that almost all of the victims of this disaster were infected at least 30 years ago, and there is substantial research evidence showing that by now they have suffered significant damage to their health and earning potential. That must be taken into consideration.
The cap proposed by the Government on annual payments once again shows the lack of compassion and reasonableness faced by these people. The fact that infected spouses will stop receiving payments is grossly unfair. The Prime Minister apologised in the House to the victims last year for what they had had to endure, saying that it was
“difficult to imagine the feelings of unfairness that people must feel”—[Official Report, 21 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 1423.]
Given the latest proposals, do not those words now ring somewhat hollow? The chilling truth of this tragedy is that about half of the estimated 5,000 haemophiliacs who were infected have died without ever seeing justice.
I would ask all Members in the Chamber to think not only of those affected, such as Michael, but of the victims’ families, who rely on financial support, which provides the security and stability they need and deserve, and which we as Members of this House have a duty to protect. This is one of the worst episodes in the history of public healthcare and the NHS. Any sense of natural justice leads, I believe, to the conclusion that it must be addressed. We cannot give these people back their health or their dignity, but we can give them closure. We can give them proper financial support—and, frankly, it is time we did.

Craig Mackinlay: In my view, real progress has been made, culminating in January 2016 with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon.   Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), outlining an additional £100 million, with principles laid out as part of the consultation.
As the Minister knows. I have followed this issue incredibly closely during my time in the House. It has been raised with me repeatedly by my constituent and victim Steve Dymond—the Minister is familiar with his case. Another constituent, Mr Lee Stay, has made himself known to me, and I am here to speak for him too. In the 1980s, he attended the Lord Mayor Treloar college in Hampshire, which was a specialist boarding school with a wing for haemophiliac children. He was given factor VIII, but the blood products contained HIV and hep C. He had a liver transplant, and now suffers from Burkitt lymphoma. He cannot work, and his house has been repossessed.
I know rather more about Mr Dymond, who is a tireless campaigner and advocate for his fellow victims. He has not been able to attend today. He is extremely unwell as a result of his hepatitis C infection, but I know that he will be watching and that the whole House will wish him and all the victims we have heard about today recovery where at all possible. Steve Dymond was afflicted by hepatitis C through no fault of his own, having received contaminated blood as treatment for haemophilia, as we have heard from many cases this afternoon. Every day of Steve’s life since his infection has been lived through the lens of that condition. His capacity to work, to enjoy time with his family, to travel, to holiday and to do all those normal things that we take for granted has been fundamentally affected by his infection.

Mark Pawsey: My hon. Friend refers to family. I want to raise the case of a constituent of mine, which I had the opportunity to talk about when we last discussed this matter in July 2015. My constituent, who was affected by contaminated blood, was trying to have a child through IVF. The couple were entitled to one round of IVF through the normal procedures, but they applied for a second round. Despite the fact that their fertility was affected by contaminated blood, they were denied a second round of IVF and had to spend £8,000 of their family money in order to conceive a second child, who has just been born, to their delight. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the context of family and support, it is extraordinary that my constituent had to go through such hardship to extend his family?

Craig Mackinlay: I entirely agree and thank my hon. Friend for his comments. That example highlights the issues faced not only by the victim, but by the family from young to old. It is remarkable that special cases such as he describes are not recognised by the system. I hope that as part of the review those instances will be resolved.
What happened to Steve, Lee and all the others whom we have heard about today was wrong. In many cases it was avoidable. They were blameless victims who were handed debilitating, dehumanising—as my hon. Friend’s example shows—and degenerative infections that have caused heartache to all those affected. Although responsibility obviously lies with the commercial suppliers of the products, the NHS unwittingly administered  them, and society owes the victims a debt. We must do the best we can to alleviate the pain and illness that victims have suffered. The decision that this House and the Government take should place those victims front and centre.
There are two threads to the approach that we should take. First, we must provide treatment for the victims, who suffer from various complex conditions and symptoms that require advanced and expensive care. It is right that we invest in the care and treatment available for those conditions, and in research. Thankfully, medical advances are making rapid progress. Secondly, we must ensure that as much restitution as possible is made to those who have suffered in that way.

Mary Robinson: My hon. Friend rightly talks about the blameless victims and the need for compensation. My constituent, who wishes not to be named, asked me about her husband, who was infected in the late 1970s and 1980s. He was a mild haemophiliac whose life was not previously at risk, but he is now living with conditions caused by contaminated blood. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the consultation on the proposals it is important that we consider the long-term impact on such families?

Craig Mackinlay: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The issue is not just money or the obvious conditions. A holistic approach is needed to what those families have faced. The example that she gives of a minor condition is truly shocking.
Money has been discussed at length this afternoon. Money can never bring back what victims have lost, but it is important that the Government do what they can to bring dignity to the shortened lives of many of those who suffer.
I welcome what the Government have done in relation to treatment. On the new generation of drug treatments, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is developing guidance on three further treatments, and NHS England announced last year that it had made available £190 million so that patients with confirmed cirrhosis from hepatitis C can benefit from new treatment options. The Department of Health estimates that around 550 individuals infected with hepatitis C through NHS-supplied blood and blood products can now access the new treatments under the NHS’s interim commissioning policies.
Medical advances will continue, and there will be beneficial new treatments around the corner, which I hope will stem much liver damage. They may prove to be the salvation for many, but it is early days in this pioneering field of research. There remains some confusion from victims about where the money is coming from, so I would welcome the Minister’s clarification on that. I will continue to push for the best treatments available, and for research so that even better treatments are around the corner.
On support for victims, I await the Government’s conclusions on the current consultation. Central to all of this is the need to bring dignity to all those afflicted. Victims tell me that they feel that the current system has in some way belittled them and that it is insufficient. Clearly a more suitable settlement for such victims is needed. Care for bereaved next of kin, as we have heard this afternoon, remains at the forefront of victims’  minds. The settlement needs to be flexible, and I await the proposals that the Government bring forward to address these concerns.
It saddens me that some victims, including those in my own constituency, do not view the Minister as being committed to this cause. I personally refute that. I have found her to be diligent and dedicated to this tragedy. She has been honourable throughout. She has spoken honestly with me, and with great compassion. On every occasion I have spoken with her about the issue, often late in the Division Lobby, she has been both knowledgeable and committed to righting this wrong. Campaigners and victims, such as Steve and Lee, will not settle for a halfway house. Although we can never turn the clock back, I am confident that the Government will do what they can to give dignity to all those affected.

Natascha Engel: Order. We are now getting closer to five minutes as the informal time limit on speeches. I ask Members to keep to five minutes, because otherwise we will not get everybody in.

Norman Lamb: I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her amazing campaigning work, and indeed to the other hon. Members who helped secure this debate. I also pay tribute to the organisations Tainted Blood, the Contaminated Blood Campaign and the Haemophilia Society, which have campaigned for years to get justice for so many people. We should also pay tribute to the many individuals who have fought on and on for justice, often in very difficult circumstances.
The Minister should reflect on the extraordinary unanimity of view in this debate, on the reflections in the consultation, on the proposals that the Government have put forward and on the need to think again. This is not a party political issue, because all Governments are to some extent culpable—Labour Governments, Conservative Governments and, indeed, the coalition Government. This is a moral imperative—there is no doubt about that. We have to offer these people justice, and the Government must accept that.
The Government set out the principle right at the start, in their introduction to the consultation, by stating that they accept and recognise their responsibility to everyone infected as a result of NHS treatment, but that leaves out those people affected. This is about not only those infected, but those affected. What about all the loved ones, the children, the spouses and the partners bereaved as a result of loss of life? The Government should accept responsibility for them as well. They have to accept that when they respond to this consultation exercise.
Serious concerns have been raised about this set of proposals. The Prime Minister said—his words were very clear—that:
“We will help them more”—[Official Report, 11 March 2015; Vol. 594, C. 289.]
Yet the proposals, when we see the detail, include a proposal to cut the amount of money that individuals receive. That is not consistent with what the Prime Minister said, so surely the Government must think  again. It is surely unconscionable that people in very real need will lose out financially as a result of these proposals. What assessment have the Government made of the winners and the losers? How much will some people lose? It is really important that the Government are open about that. If the Minister cannot respond today, I would be grateful if she wrote to hon. Members to set out the assessment of the amount some people will lose, and of how many people are likely to lose, as a result of these proposals.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and others have said, it is surely not right that people in Scotland benefit more than people in England. Surely everyone should be treated exactly the same as a result of this scandal.

Philippa Whitford: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Lamb: I will not, because I am concerned about the time.
Ending inflation-proofing actually means that we plan a cut to what people are paid every year for as long as there is inflation. Surely we cannot begin to justify that.
I have a problem with the principle of funding new medical treatments at an early stage by taking money from people’s financial support. That surely confuses two principles. We should leave intact the money that is available for people’s financial security.
I am concerned that the money will come from the Department of Health. The impact assessment talks about the other things that cannot be done as a result. Surely the money should come from the Treasury. In the Budget, the Government cut capital gains tax. I heard recently of one individual who will benefit to the tune of nearly £1 million as a result. These are political choices. Do we as a country want to cut capital gains tax and give large sums to very wealthy people at the same time as cutting financial support for people who have lost out as a result of a national scandal? That is surely unacceptable.
I therefore say to the Minister: accept what the Haemophilia Society says, withdraw these proposals and think again.

Chris Stephens: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). I thank fellow members of the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood for securing the debate. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who chairs the group superbly, and I start my remarks the way she ended hers—by saying that we are debating compensation proposals for what has been described as the worst treatment disaster in the history of the national health service.
Some 80% of victims are critically ill as a result of receiving contaminated blood and blood products. They suffer the side effects of past treatments, and they are in financial hardship, having been forced out of employment precisely because of the health issues caused by infection. They, their families and the families of those who have died should be treated with equal primacy.
Only weeks after my election, I was contacted by my constituent Cathy Young, who is a stage 1 widow. Cathy is a member of the Scottish Infected Blood Forum and a passionate advocate on this issue. When I met her last week, I asked her to give me her thoughts on what I should say this afternoon, so let me describe them for the next few moments.
Cathy said:
“I don’t know due to the Scottish Government’s recently accepting the review group’s recommendations what can be said, but what I would say is how can the UK Government consultation regarding other UK widows be so far off the mark compared to Scotland. There is more work to be done particularly in relation to extra hepatic manifestations, other illnesses caused by hepatitis C other than liver disease. What will the UK Government do to address this?”
She sent me an email today saying she was sorry that today sees the funeral of another victim of contaminated blood.
As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) have pointed out, the Scottish Infected Blood Forum has identified 25 families resident in Scotland who would be covered under the proposed UK Government scheme, as the original incident took place while they were resident elsewhere in the UK. Therefore, MPs representing constituencies in Scotland may find themselves representing constituents with two distinct offers of compensation. That is not fair—it is completely unjust.
The Haemophilia Society has sent an email, which I think the Father of the House has touched on, about the differences between the UK and Scottish Government proposals. It is worth emphasising those differences for the benefit of those watching these proceedings. Those in the rest of the UK with advanced HIV or hepatitis C will get £12,000 less in annual payments. Those elsewhere in the UK who are co-infected with hepatitis C and HIV will get £7,000 less in annual payments, and there will be limited or no support available for the widows, partners and children of those infected. There will be substantially reduced ongoing support for those elsewhere in the UK.
The Scottish Government have, in effect, committed to almost doubling the support they give to victims, widows and widowers, and dependent children. The Haemophilia Society is concerned that, without significant revisions to their proposals, the UK Government will fail to follow the example set by the Scottish Government in offering victims of this terrible tragedy and their families the support they deserve. I hope that Ministers in this place recognise that and that they will address the issue.
There is now a very real concern that the UK Government have broken their promise to deliver improvements to the current scheme of payments. In early 2015, the Prime Minister said:
“I want us to take action. I am not sure whether that action will ever fully satisfy those who want this wrong to be righted, but as a wealthy and successful country we should be helping these people more. We will help them more, but we need Penrose first, and if I am standing here after the next election it will be done.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 289.]
Where do we go from here? The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, who represents part of my constituency in the Scottish Parliament, has summed it up beautifully:
“In total, of course, hundreds of people in Scotland died after being infected through blood transfusions and even after all this time it is still hard to imagine the difficulties, the anxieties, and the hardships that people and their families have had to contend with.
In addition to dealing with the illness itself, you’ve had to cope with uncertainty, with sorrow, and with grief. Many people, of course, feel stigmatised despite being utterly blameless. And I know that people still fight daily battles, both physical and physiological, to achieve some kind of normality in their lives…We as a society have a moral obligation to help people who are infected with an illness by the Health Service”.
Let us use those words as a guide to how we take this issue forward, compensate the victims and their families, and provide for them what they truly deserve.

Peter Bottomley: It was 1958 when Dr Garrott Allen at Stanford started discovering the risks of contamination in blood. Over the next 20 to 30 years, he spent his time trying to persuade people that commercial blood companies probably knew early on—they certainly knew later on—that one in seven of those from whom they were taking donations were at high risk of contamination. It was not until 1991 that Crown immunity was lifted from the blood products laboratory. If people look at the taintedblood.info website, they will see the chronology, which is pretty accurate and very useful.
That does not solve the problem faced by the Government, Members of Parliament and those affected. I propose that, while the national health service should be treating people, responsibility for dealing with the compensation and trying to make up for the costs to those affected should be taken away from the Department of Health and held jointly by the Cabinet Office and the Treasury. I think that that is the only way of solving the problem of Scotland having to determine where those affected got the infection, rather than their actual situation and where they live. If we are going to have a national approach that not only recognises the autonomy of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish health service but treats people fairly, we have to find a way of getting the non-health aspects away from the Department of Health. I ask the Government to consider whether there is any way of doing that effectively.
Moving on to how people should be treated, I have received a message from someone on behalf of the nearly 200 co-infected people and the 2,220 mono-infected hep C stage 1 victims. Here are some words directly:
“Now about the way they are blackmailing us over the drugs!
I and every other Haemophiliac have never paid for our Factor VIII, I have never paid for any of my HIV anti viral drugs, and my other prescription charges are covered by a pre payment certificate, my blood tests, ultrasounds scan, Fibroscans, and all my appointments are covered by the NHS? So why would they even consider asking us if we think the money should come out of the additional £100 Million they have offered as financial help?”
The answer to that is that it should not. By the way, to those for whom the proposals on which the Government are consulting would lead to a reduction in income, the Government certainly should say that they need to be red-circled—that their money will remain the way it  is—and no one should have their money reduced as a result of the changes. We are trying to extend help to people, not to reduce it.
I turn to another quote:
“Co-infected Haemophiliacs need a voice in the debate, we are so few left, dealing with two virus as you know has increased complications. We need to be respected and remembered as are the Scottish Haemophiliacs in the midst of all the mono Hep C victims.
Being co-infected with HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C is the equivalent of 2nd stage Hepatitis C, but at the top end where someone has received a liver transplant, has a limited life expectancy and has to take medication every day for the rest of their lives or die, but the co-infected also has the additional problems of having the illnesses both these viruses can cause—even to the point doctors cannot tell which virus is causing the problem. On top of this we have the life-long secrecy and stigma attached to HIV/AIDS virus.”
It seems to me that we have got to say to Government that they may be trying more now than Governments have tried before, but it is not appropriate for Department of Health Ministers to have to balance this against other treatments. It must come out of the Department of Health so that the money can go properly to those who have suffered because we made mistakes and the American blood companies made mistakes. We need to recognise that. I am not talking about liability; I am trying to deal with what should happen now.
As it happens, the first person in my family to take an AIDS test was my mother, who had a serious operation and received lots of blood. The second was my wife, who received eight units of blood in 1975 when the issue started to come out. I have my blood tested for HIV/AIDS and hep every 10 weeks as a blood donor. I only wish that we had remembered what Richard Titmuss said in his book about giving blood, “The Gift Relationship”. We do it for free, and we do not know who is going to benefit. The people who benefit do not know where the blood comes from, but at least it comes from people who have been tested to make sure that it is safe for our blood to be passed on.

Andrew Slaughter: I add my thanks and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on what she has said today and on her outstanding leadership on this issue. She will be encouraged by the commonality of view—it goes further than consensus—across the House, and I hope that the Minister will take note. Back-Bench debates are often not party political, but I cannot remember another debate in which Members’ sympathies have been so clearly at one. I am sure that many Members feel, as I do, quite let down by the consultation. I will not personalise the matter by referring to the Minister. It is a government responsibility, and this Government are now in power.
We need to bear some basic facts in mind. This is an NHS scandal. The Secretary of State, perhaps more than any other Secretary of State, has been keen to identify where things have gone wrong with hospitals, practitioners and events in the NHS, and to point the finger and say that what happened was not right. This is the clearest case of that, and it is the biggest scandal in the NHS. We are talking about innocent victims. Many of us—even if the Government do not admit  it—believe that there has been negligence and there is culpability, but I think we all agree that there is a moral responsibility.
I hope that we all still believe in the welfare state that was set up after the second world war, and that we all think that the state should act as a safety net. The matter goes further than that, however; it is about state error. It is about the state making mistakes that it is bound to correct. The state has made a variety of mistakes—Equitable Life, flooding and many others—after which it has been able to dig into its pockets and find money because it believes that there is a compelling case for doing so. Perhaps a closer analogy is mesothelioma. Mesothelioma victims have not had the complete compensation that they need, but at least the responsibility to make provision for those people has been recognised, even if one cannot point the finger and say that it is anybody’s fault in particular.
I want to say that this has been a very long struggle. I have been engaged in it only since my constituency boundaries changed in 2010 and I found that I had some sufferers, victims of incidents of contaminated blood, in my constituency. Since then, I have been pretty active as a Member by taking part in meetings, debates, reviews and the all-party group. There have been some important interventions. I credit the Minister for Community and Social Care for the work he has tried to do, and the Prime Minister for the apology he made in relation to that. There have also been concessions, such as that the existing schemes are inadequate and badly run, and that there are too many of them.
We have asked for a full and final settlement, for the overall impact on victims to be assessed and for each victim and their families to be dealt with as individuals, so I do not think that we expected to be in the position we are today. It is a position in which the Haemophilia Society can write quite baldly that
“the majority of people currently receiving financial support will be worse off under the new scheme.”
How did we get into this situation?
If I and other Members feel let down, what do our constituents feel? What do people such as my constituent Andrew March feel? His whole life has been fundamentally altered by this. His health, his life expectancy, his earnings ability and his career, as well as aspirational things such as the ability to own his own home and to live a normal life—I thought the Government believed in them—are all out of his reach now. This is a fundamental change, but it has been going on not for years but for decades.
I would say to the Minister that the issue of reduced income must be looked at in full, whether that reduction is because of discretionary payments or other reasons, as must the overall impact on the individual and their family, and the implications, more widely than simply health, on their whole lifestyle. We should not confuse treatment, including the good and innovative schemes that are now available—anybody should receive such treatment from the NHS, to which we all pay in, as of right—with paying proper compensation and ensuring that people are properly rewarded.
Let me end by making two quick points. First, it has been said that Scotland has set an example. It is not a perfect example, but I strongly believe that we should at least be able to match what happens in Scotland. Secondly, my constituents have told me that they do not feel  comfortable filling in responses to the consultation. They do not believe the consultation is presented clearly and honestly, and the questions are phrased so prescriptively that they are unable to communicate what they think. The Government can do what they want—it would have been better if they had withdrawn the consultation, but that has not happened—but they do have the power to respond by saying, “We have made a mistake. We haven’t taken into account everything that should be done. We have to act with compassion and with honesty, and we have to give proper compensation.”
Finally, I must say that I disagree, as I rarely do, with the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). This is about justice, and justice can be delivered by recognising the needs of the community who have been infected in this way. I think that the Government have a duty to act.

Alison Thewliss: I am very glad to be able to participate in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for securing it. This is a very important debate.
I am slightly sad to have to say this, but it is a shame that the debate is happening at this time of day. I know that constituents of many MPs around the country have travelled a long way to come to Parliament today. Some of my constituents were in the Gallery earlier, having got up at 3 o’clock this morning to come down from Glasgow, but they have had to leave to fly back up and go back to work. [Interruption.] I appreciate that, as the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), says, it was the Speaker’s decision. I am just reflecting on the fact that that is quite sad, and perhaps the procedures of the House should be looked at, particularly when already vulnerable constituents who do not have an awful lot of money have had to travel a great distance to hear what their MPs have to say. I went to join the lobby outside earlier this afternoon and spent a lot of time speaking to people, and their sense of frustration at having to wait so long for justice was compounded by their not being able to stay for the whole of this debate, after waiting for so long for a chance to come to the House to listen to us.
To move on to the more substantive issues, many of us are wearing ribbons given to us by the campaigners, so I will tell members of the public who may be watching at home what the ribbons mean. The red is for sufferers of HIV, the yellow is for people who have suffered from hep C, and the black is to remember those who have died waiting during this process. It is very profound to see the number of people who have lost their lives, over the piece, waiting for justice and for some answers.
The constituent of mine who was here today is Maria Armour. She contracted hep C in 1981 when she suffered a miscarriage in hospital and needed a blood transfusion. She did not find out that she had been infected until she turned about 35; she took ill and had to find out what was wrong. People did not know and could not tell her. She had to wait two years for a diagnosis, when she found out that she had hep C. The treatment that she began at that time further compounded her ill health.  She now has fibromyalgia and lupus, and also has issues with her bowels. That causes her great distress. She cannot go out and her life is on hold.
Despite all that, Maria is a very inspiring individual. I spoke to her today. She continues to campaign. She, like many people, has dedicated her life to others, and now wants to be able to spend time with her family rather than having to continue to fight this fight. I asked her what she would like to be highlighted this afternoon in the brief time available to us. She said that she is looking for fair and equal treatment. She does not want to be a charity case—to have to go to funds such as the Caxton Foundation, or send them begging letters for very simple things that most of us would take for granted.
In particular, Maria mentioned that she was turning 50. She applied for funds for a dress to wear to her 50th birthday party, because, unlike many of us, she did not have the general funds to go out to the shop and buy herself a dress. She has to put in three quotes for that dress—they choose which dress she gets—and gets vouchers to pay for it. She mentioned that when, in the past, she has asked for furniture, she had to have vouchers, so she had to go to the shop to buy the furniture and count out all those vouchers in the shop, in front of people, to pay for it. That is very stigmatising. It is unfair that people have to do that, and do not get money, which the rest of us have to go and buy the things we need to make our lives easier. She has a lack of choices in her life. She cannot go on holiday with her grandchildren, as she would like to. She does not have the funds to do all the things she would like.
It would be easier for many people in Maria’s situation if they got the fair funding that they deserve. I am glad that the Scottish Government have recognised that funding should be available at a higher level. It has been said that it is a shame that constituents in England, and the few in Scotland who are affected, will not get that higher level, but that is not an unfairness on the part of the Scottish Government. They have recognised the issue, listened to people, consulted, and done a lot of work, and have decided what they think is fair. The ball is now in the UK Government’s court—they need to decide what is fair.
Some people have waited a long time—in the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan), 42 years—since the initial infection. They need to have what is fair and what is due to them. They are not at fault here. We need to recognise that and find the funds to enable those people to live their lives with dignity as we wish to live our own lives. People should not in any case have to write begging letters to get what they need to live their life with dignity. I commend that point to the House.

Liz McInnes: First, I pay tribute to my predecessor, Jim Dobbin, who worked tirelessly on this issue on behalf of his and my constituents in Heywood and Middleton.
As many Members have already identified, this scandal has affected thousands of people who were infected with hepatitis C and HIV through NHS blood products in the 1970s and 1980s. It has been described as
“the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS”,
and was responsible for the deaths of thousands of haemophilia patients. It has, quite simply, been a nightmare for sufferers and their families. It is a nightmare that continues. It has taken away the careers, hopes, dreams and aspirations of thousands of people, including constituents of mine, just because they needed blood.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), the co-chairs of the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. Their inquiry into current support for those affected by the contaminated blood scandal in the UK is a superb analysis. The current system for administering compensation is a nightmare and a scandal in itself. We are still in the absurd position of having five trusts, two private companies and three registered charities which give various kinds of assistance to the people affected. The people who should be helped most, the victims, are very far from happy with the present situation.
The all-party group’s report highlights that many beneficiaries are in poverty. At present, the widows and widowers of hepatitis C infectees receive no ongoing financial support whatever. The majority of people with hepatitis C—namely, those with chronic stage 1 hepatitis C—also receive no ongoing payments. People can apply for discretionary payments for all manner of items through the three charities, but, as has already been highlighted, many find the process of having to provide evidence of need for help deeply frustrating. They feel as though they are begging. Registrants report being left completely in the dark about what discretionary support is available to them. This has meant that some people have not received payments they were entitled to. Many more people with hepatitis C are aware of the trusts’ existence, with considerable issues of low take-up. Many people with hepatitis C are unable to obtain payments from their trusts because the NHS has lost their hospital records, or because the trust has denied they are at the sufficient stage of hepatitis C infection to warrant support, even though their own hepatologists have insisted that they are.
The report recommends that the Government second a public health doctor to the five trusts to ascertain the needs of beneficiaries and set Government funding at the level commensurate with need. This also means extending some form of ongoing payments to those with stage 1 hepatitis C and giving the widows of hepatitis C infectees entitlement to the same payments as those of HIV infectees. The trust system has to be reformed and nobody should be left in the dark: they should be told precisely what support is available to them. Those facing difficulties providing proof that they were infected should also be able to get help with their applications.
During the Westminster Hall debate on contaminated blood on 9 September 2015, the Minister was questioned on the commencement date of the public consultation on support for those affected by infected blood. She stated it would occur before the end of the year. It was announced on 21 January 2016. The statement on the launch of the public consultation announced funding of £100 million for the proposals set out in the consultation. That is in addition to the current spend and the £25 million already announced in 2015. The Department of Health previously estimated £455 million as the future cost of  meeting payments for the assorted schemes. It is not clear whether the £125 million is in addition to that, or represents projected funding being brought forward.
We wish to know how the Department of Health intends to distribute the £125 million. I appreciate that the consultation has not concluded yet, but a rough outline would be appreciated. Is it intended to end all discretionary or top-up payments to those who receive ongoing payments? Are there plans to allow special discretionary payments for dependants—either partners or children? Will there be a review mechanism regarding the freezing of the level of payments at £15,000, or will the sum remain at £15,000 regardless?

John Bercow: Order. Just before I call the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), I should emphasise that I want to be able to call the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) by 6.26 pm. I am sure the hon. Lady will factor that into the equation.

Margaret Ritchie: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for bringing forward this debate, along with the co-signatories. I was pleased to be one of them.
Today’s debate is the latest in a number of discussions we have held in the Chamber and Westminster Hall on the support arrangements required for people infected with contaminated blood. I pay tribute to the many advocates throughout the UK on the vexatious subject of tainted blood and to the Haemophilia Society. The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said there was striking unanimity across the Chamber that this was not a party political issue but one that impacted on the lives of many people, not only the direct victims but the families, spouses, partners and children who, in many instances, have become carers. It has forced many people into poverty and destitution, which should never have been the case.
There has been a renewed urgency to this debate, particularly since last July’s urgent question, and in that regard I would like to put on the record my thanks to and praise for the work of the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. However, I would not overstate that urgency, given that publication of the consultation has been repeatedly delayed since its announcement last July and the Prime Minister’s apology on 25 March last year. None the less, I welcome the long-awaited publication of the consultation. I do not necessarily agree with many of the contents, but it is one further step to a full and final settlement for the victims of this tragedy and their families.
Sadly, many have died from their viruses, and for others, every additional day they live is a bonus. This must be dealt with comprehensively once and for all. Let no one be in any doubt: there is no scope for delay. We have spoken at length in previous debates about the impact that the use of contaminated blood products imported back in the 1970s and 1980s has had on people’s lives. Lives have been devastated following the contraction of hepatitis C or HIV as a direct result of these contaminated products.
I have spoken before, in Westminster Hall, about one of my constituents, Brian Carberry, from my local town of Downpatrick. I grew up with him and his family. He and his brothers were born with haemophilia. He received blood transfusions in the 1970s and 1980s, and as a result, his health condition became particularly complicated and he ended up with hepatitis C. Only five or six months ago, he was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer for which he now receives an aggressive form of chemotherapy.
I have also met two other constituents, twin brothers, from South Down, Michael and Seamus Sloane, who have met many difficult health, financial and interpersonal relationship challenges as a result of their haemophilia combined with contaminated blood transfusions. Their lives have been turned upside down. In all our meetings, they asked for a full and final settlement for people like them. It struck me what amazing advocates they were: they took a very sunny approach, they saw a better day ahead. But that better day ahead can only be achieved if the Minister indicates unequivocally that there will be a full and final settlement for people like my constituents and the many others described in this debate.

Mims Davies: rose—

Margaret Ritchie: I am sorry, but I cannot take any interventions because time is limited.
The health problems that thousands face as a result of this tragedy have been exacerbated by the distress and uncertainty around the support arrangements. Irrespective of how bad things have been, I would urge the Minister, having listened to the reasoned demands of Members of all parties, to state clearly that there will be a full and final settlement, that there will be proper transitional arrangements hereafter, and that people so affected will have the right and direct access to the medication required to help them live with their medical conditions, while the families affected by these problems will also be helped. The tragedy of this scandal must be ended and a curtain must be drawn on it.

Jim Shannon: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I think three minutes will suffice for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The hon. Members for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) have still to contribute, and we must try now to get back in time. It falls to the hon. Member for Strangford to exercise Executive leadership in the matter.

Jim Shannon: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to make a few comments in the debate. Let me first thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for setting the scene so well.
Let me start by quoting:
“You can’t give us back our health. But you can give us back our dignity. This tortured road has been too long for many of us. But for the rest of us, please let this be the final road to closure.”
Imagine going to a British hospital in a British city in the middle of one of the richest and most advanced countries in the world for an operation or procedure,  and looking forward to getting home, but through no fault of your own, coming out infected with haemophilia or worse. We just cannot imagine what that must be like. For that reason, we must do everything we can to give people back their dignity, as one victim said to the all-party parliamentary group.
The current trusts and systems are not working as well as they could, and they are talking of doing away with aspects of the support for those affected. That is simply outrageous. Of course there are people affected by hepatitis who had nothing to do with the contaminated blood. I understand that we are talking about some 40,000 people across the country, and sadly there is an ever-growing number in Northern Ireland. Scotland has a strong track record through its “Sexual Health and Blood Borne Virus Framework”. It has set an example for the rest of the United Kingdom to follow.
Let me conclude quickly with these five points, because I am conscious of the timescale you have set me, Mr Speaker. The survivors are calling for a full public inquiry to be held under the Inquiries Act 2005 to investigate fully the events that led to thousands of British haemophiliacs and others with bleeding disorders becoming superinfected with a multitude of viruses and pathogens over many years. Full compensation for haemophiliacs and others with bleeding disorders and their families should be awarded in such a way that closure can be achieved for the majority of those infected and affected, including the widows and dependants of those who have died.
The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) made an important point about the families. He said we should not forget them, and we are all saying the same thing. We hope that the Minister will respond to that, and we want a full and comprehensive acknowledgement by the Prime Minister. He has apologised, but the apology has been lost in the delays that there have been. There are also lessons to be learned from what happened to the haemophiliacs, and measures should be put in place to protect the patients of the future. There have been missed warnings, failures to pass on test results to patients, procedural errors and non-consensual testing.
Let me conclude. Imagine being one of those innocent people, and imagine the difference that delivery on some of these aspects would make. As the testimony I quoted earlier said:
“You can’t give us back our health. But you can give us back our dignity. This tortured road has been too long for many of us. But for the rest of us, please let this be the final road to closure.”
On such a sensitive matter, we need to be able to give our full empathy and sympathy to those affected. I really believe that the Government need to deliver.

Philippa Whitford: We have paid tribute to many of the people who have come from across the UK to listen to today’s debate, but there is one group missing: members of Haemophilia Scotland, who are in Tayside attending a funeral of one of their members, the second of three brothers who have haemophilia. The remaining brother has had a transplant because of liver damage. I expect that everyone here would want to send their condolences to the family.
Let us recall that this scandal has been going on for over 40 years. People have been dying without being recognised and without being looked after for all that time. It really is a disgrace. We talk about not accepting liability. I have my specs on because I want to read out some quotations, which, as Members know, I do not normally do. I have a letter here. According to a leading doctor in the Food and Drug Administration in America, in May 1985, heat treatment of blood products had been available for some time, but non-heat-treated blood could continue to be produced with the current licences because the FDA was not going to do anything about it. It could have regulated the practice out, but it wanted things to be tidied up quietly. The doctor explained that although the FDA could revoke the licences through regulatory process, it did not want any attention to be paid to the fact that the practice had been allowed to continue for so long; it wanted the issue to be
“quietly solved without alerting the Congress, the medical community and the public.”
I have a copy of a letter from John Major, the former Prime Minister, who was at the time Chief Secretary to the Treasury. In 1997, he wrote to Tony Newton, then a Health Minister, raising the possible consequences of a sympathetic response to the Haemophilia Society:
“It could lead to an open-ended commitment of huge dimensions
and
“give rise to court action against the Government because of the implication of negligence”.
He asked Tony Newton to “consider the points” made by the society, but
“with no implication that the Government will take action.”
Here we are, nearly 30 years on, in almost exactly the same situation.
As has frequently been mentioned, this is the biggest treatment disaster in the NHS, and it happened because we were importing American coagulation products and American blood—blood taken from prisoners, or units of blood that were sold. Who sells their blood for donation? People living on the streets; people who are drug addicts. The main reason haemophiliacs and others are suffering is that making factor VIII meant using the blood products of multiple donors, which meant an increase in the risk of a positive result. Moreover, the haemophiliacs received those products over and over again.
Here we are, all these years on. When I graduated in 1982, and when I worked as a young surgeon throughout the 1980s, this was just beginning to emerge and be discovered. It certainly left me, as a surgeon, with an absolute fear of transfusing blood. I used to go to great lengths to use electrocautery and other techniques to avoid shedding blood in elective cases, because we did not know what other problems were there.
Some of my colleagues have drawn attention to the exact terms of the Scottish settlement, but the first three can be summarised thus. People who are suffering from hepatitis C, HIV or co-infection will receive more money, allowing them to receive at least the equivalent of an average income of £27,000. People with stage 1 hepatitis C will receive £50,000 instead of £20,000, and those who have received compensation of £20,000 in the past will be eligible for £30,000 now. It is totally accepted by the Scottish Government that focusing solely on cirrhosis is a rather bizarre way of assessing people, and  they are entirely open to an evidence-based piece of work in the future looking into how people should really be assessed.
I think that one of the biggest differences in Scotland is the recognition of the bereaved families. They will receive the money for another year, and will then receive a lifelong pension of 75%. Our flexible fund will continue to be topped up to the point of £1 million a year. As has already been said, that will not give people back their lives, but it can allow them to live with dignity.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) suggested, with a degree of criticism, that Scotland had gone ahead rather than seeking a United Kingdom solution. How long should we wait? Scotland was criticised because although we were ready to screen blood in 1990, we waited until 1991 so that there would be UK screening of blood donations. We made that mistake then, and we cannot make it again now.

Norman Lamb: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Philippa Whitford: I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.
I do not think that we would be debating this matter with the same urgency if there were not the contrast with what Scotland is doing. This is not just about financial support and recognition. All patients in Scotland with hepatitis C for whom Sofosbuvir is appropriate can receive it. I find it shocking that people in England who have been infected with contaminated blood should have to use any of their funding to buy a drug that can increase their quality of life and reduce the risk of giving the condition to their family. We are doing this not just for those patients but as a public health measure. If we reduce the burden of virus in the community, we will reduce the number of new cases.
A year ago, the Prime Minister and our First Minister responded to the Penrose inquiry. That inquiry was carried out in Scotland; the UK has never had a public inquiry on this matter. Both of them apologised, and our First Minister has used this first year to set up a group to look into changing support, and ensuring that people can access treatment and that families are recognised. I call on the Prime Minister to honour his apology and to ensure that patients in the rest of the UK receive the same treatment.

Andrew Gwynne: I start by paying tribute to the 21 hon. and right hon. Members who have today provided a strong voice for the victims of contaminated blood. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who has been tireless in her pursuit of justice. I remember her forceful arguments when she asked an urgent question on the subject about a year ago, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) responded on the Opposition’s behalf, and when she asked her urgent question in December, to which I responded for the Opposition. She does real credit to the cause of those who are suffering as a result of this scandal. We must never ever forget the personal tragedies behind scandals such as  this one, and I want to pay tribute to the families who have travelled down here today to listen to the debate. They deserve their day in Parliament, and I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the points that have been raised by all Members and by the families of the victims.

George Howarth: I apologise for not being here throughout the debate; I was chairing a Committee elsewhere in the building. Would my hon. Friend accept that one of the defining characteristics of the modern world is that we have an expectation that an individual, a company or a Government will accept responsibility when things go wrong, and that they will accept the consequences of taking that responsibility? Does he agree that it is high time the Government accepted responsibility in this case?

Andrew Gwynne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right, and I will come on to that point later. We owe it to the victims and their families to find some kind of justice for them.
I am not frequently on the same side as the editorial line taken by the Sunday Express, but I congratulate that newspaper on its tireless campaign for justice. This scandal has seen families torn apart through death and illness caused by the negligence of public bodies. I am willing to accept that, over the years, the response of Governments of all colours has just not been good enough. When the consultation was published in January, I was clear that while no amount of money could ever make up for the impact that this tragedy has had on people’s lives, the victims deserved some form of justice. We have three days until the consultation closes and I want to use my remarks to push the Minister on four points relating to the current proposals.
First, in the 1970s and 1980s, around 7,500 people were infected with hepatitis C or HIV as a result of this scandal. Many of those people were being treated for haemophilia. The viruses have had a devastating impact on their lives and those of their families, not least through loss of earnings and the cost of treatment. The failure of successive Governments to accept liability for this issue means that many of the victims have lost financial security through no fault of their own.

Mims Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Gwynne: I am afraid that I will not; I do not have enough time now.
The current system of support is only partial; it does not offer the full and final settlement that those affected and their families need in order to live with dignity. Indeed, it falls well below the level of support available in the Republic of Ireland.
We must be honest that the development of support, financial or otherwise, for the victims has been haphazard over the years, and support is always delivered too slowly. However, I remain concerned about aspects of the Government’s proposals. A number of those affected have made it clear to me that removing discretionary payments will make them worse off, potentially by thousands of pounds a year. It makes little sense to announce more funding for a reformed scheme only to  remove the critical day-to-day support that so many people rely on. I wrote to the Minister a few weeks ago on that point, so she will know that this is a basic issue of fairness and openness. The victims of the contaminated blood scandal deserve better than this, so I will be grateful if the Minister confirms what is intended for the future of the payments.
Secondly, I welcome the introduction of support for people at stage 1, as so far they have been denied the annual payments to which they should be entitled, but I want to ensure that the impact that a person’s illness has had on other areas of their lives, such as employment or educational opportunities, will be taken into account. Many people have had their professional lives cut short or have missed out on higher education, so I hope that the impact on quality of life will be considered as a fundamental part of the settlement. Furthermore, an assessment every three years strikes me as excessive given that, generally speaking, these conditions will not improve. Many beneficiaries will be receiving either employment and support allowance or personal independence payments and will be regularly assessed for them, so it is unnecessary and punitive to impose a further layer of assessment on the victims. Why not have some form of joined-up approach with the Department for Work and Pensions to make life easier?
Thirdly, I am concerned about the plans to freeze the existing annual payments. Many victims of the scandal had promising careers cut short or were not given the chance to embark on one after being infected. They had that taken away from them in the most damaging of circumstances, and it is just plain wrong of the Government to fail to recognise the loss of standard of living, as well as the effects on health and longevity.
Finally, I want to mention the discrepancies between the responses of the Scottish and UK Governments. As we have heard, the Scottish Government will increase annual payments for those with HIV or the hepatitis C virus, increasing the initial lump sum from £20,000 to £50,000. Will the Minister elaborate on what alignment there might be with the English system?
I do not doubt the sincerity of the Prime Minister when he made a pre-election pledge to do more after the publication of the Penrose report, nor that of the Public Health Minister, who is doing her best with a constrained spending envelope, but I am sure that she will understand the real disappointment that people have been feeling. This drawn-out process has only exacerbated the despondency in the community. Will the Minister tell me when any new scheme will be implemented? The community of people affected need assurances that any improvements to the system will be introduced as soon as possible and sustained long beyond that. Will she commit to a debate in Government time to allow for appropriate scrutiny of the package? We should have a full day of discussions on the matter once the Government have responded to the consultation.
I am sure that the Public Health Minister appreciates that the longer this goes on, the longer we leave in place a system that does not work and leaves victims without adequate support. No amount of money will ever fully make up for what happened, but we owe to those still living with the consequences the dignity of a decent lasting settlement. It is time to act.

Jane Ellison: I thank the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), the SNP spokeswoman, for granting me a little of their time to respond to many of the points made during this excellent debate. I congratulate members of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, in particular the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), on securing the debate and on their campaigning work, to which tributes have rightly been paid. I also wish to thank those who have taken considerable time and trouble, and made considerable efforts, to travel down to London today to express their feelings to their Members of Parliament; some have been able to stay to listen to the debate. I am going to spend as much of my time as possible responding to as many of the factual questions I have been asked as I can, so let me move swiftly on to that.
The consultation on infected blood scheme reform seeks views on what a reformed scheme should look like. This is the first public consultation on this matter by a Government, although there have been other consultations led by parliamentarians. Obviously, it has attracted a lot of interest from Members, as indicated by the presence of those contributing today. I know that many Members, myself included, have had personal frustrations and concerns expressed to them over many years by constituents.
Members will appreciate that, as the consultation is still open, I am not in a position to give any commitments or guarantees on the shape of scheme reform today. Indeed, I want to reassure the House that no decisions on scheme reform will be made until the consultation has closed and all the responses have been carefully analysed. I have listened with keen interest to the various points that have been made and I will carefully consider the contents of this debate, alongside the responses to the consultation.
None the less, I am aware that there are some concerns—they have been expressed today—about the consultation and some of the proposals, and I will try to address those today. First, let me deal with any lack of clarity on the additional funding committed. To be clear, when I launched the consultation I announced £100 million of new funding for the scheme. That is in addition to the current spend of about £22 million per year and the £25 million announced by the Prime Minister in March 2015, so it will more than double our annual spend on the scheme in England over the next five years.
To date, we have spent more than £390 million on support for those affected, and the additional funds I have announced bring the budget for the next five years to £237 million. That means that, over the lifetime of the schemes, we project that more than £1 billion will be spent on support for those affected. The money comes from the Department of Health budget—I hear the points that have been made about where people think the money should come from, but that is where it is coming from and that is the funding we have been able to identify. We are more than doubling the budget for the next five years. This financial assistance is voluntarily provided by Government to help those infected and their dependants. I wish to ensure, and the key aim of the scheme is to ensure, that the money is distributed in a fair and equitable way within that  budget envelope and within the legal framework within which I am working, in a way that is also sustainable for the future.
With that in mind, I want to emphasise to Members and to the House that this is a truly open consultation; I genuinely want to hear from all those who have been affected. It has been very useful for me to hear the points made in this debate. I want to hear what support would be most beneficial within the parameters I have set out.
To give some idea of how widely we reached to try to get responses to the consultation, I should say that letters have been sent to all 3,482 registrants of the existing schemes to make them aware of the consultation and provide them with details of how to access it. Letters were also sent to almost 180 Members who have at various times, by various means, contacted us on behalf of constituents over the past year or so, and they have been urged to respond, too. We have already received more than 1,200 responses to the consultation, and I hope that reassures some Members, including the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who were worried that people might have found the consultation difficult to respond to. That is a very good level of response and it is enormously helpful. I am very pleased that so many people have taken the time to feed their views into the process. It might be helpful and, I hope, reassuring for Members to know that a specific team in the Department has been established to ensure that every response is read in full and captured in the analysis, and given that respectful hearing to which one Member referred.
It has been very valuable in the contributions to the consultation we have already received to hear from the quieter voices in the affected community that I have spoken of before. Indeed, I have been struck—in some ways shocked—by the number of affected individuals who were not aware of some of the support potentially available to them, such as the discretionary financial support and non-financial support provided by the three charitable scheme bodies. That has reinforced my sense, which I think is shared across the House—I say that especially in the light of today’s debate—that scheme reform is necessary, especially with a view to simplification and transparency. That point was put very ably by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes). There are still a few days left in which to submit responses, and I encourage anyone who has not responded but would like to do so to respond before midnight on 15 April.
Let me turn to some of the proposals in the consultation. I know that some of the charitable scheme bodies wrote to their beneficiaries to help clarify the consultation proposals, but some of the nuances were lost in the letters. A number of speakers, including my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), have reinforced that point. Let me confirm that the crux of the consultation is the proposal that every chronically infected individual would, for the first time, receive an annual payment under a reformed scheme. At the moment, those who are registered with the Skipton Fund at hepatitis C stage 1—that is 2,424 people, which is more than 70% of the total number of infected registrants—are not eligible for annual financial support. We are proposing a new annual payment for everyone in that group, reflective of the level of ill health they experience.  Should the proposal be taken forward, we anticipate that a large proportion of the additional money committed will be used to provide these new payments.
The proposed reforms would continue annual payments to those who currently receive them, which is, approximately 840 people. Those who are currently registered with the Skipton Fund at hepatitis C stage 2, and those with HIV registered with MFET Ltd would have their payments increased to a rate of £15,000 annually, and those co-infected with HIV and hep C would benefit from an uplift to £30,000. That means that, over the next 10 years, someone with hepatitis C stage 2 would receive £150,000 in addition to any payments they have received to date. Someone co-infected would receive £300,000 in addition to the support they have already received. None of those payments is taxable, nor does it affect a person’s entitlement to any state benefits.
There has been mention of the link to the consumer prices index. I know that there is some concern about the proposal to remove the linkage to CPI. CPI linkage can result in an annual increase or, in theory at least, a decrease in payments. This year, CPI was negative, but we decided to freeze payments to ensure that support for infected individuals did not decrease as a result. Fixing the payments at a set rate would provide more financial certainty over this spending review period for those receiving annual payments. However, I will take very careful account of the concerns that have been raised in response to the consultation when making my final decision on this matter.

Norman Lamb: rose—

Jane Ellison: I will give way if the right hon. Gentleman is really brief.

Norman Lamb: The Minister has explained that many people will benefit, but will there also be losers? If there are, will she write to confirm how much they will lose by and how many people will be involved?

Jane Ellison: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman that clarity today, and there is a specific reason for that.
I will move on to discretionary support for infected individuals. Obviously, I have heard the concerns—I have had a number of letters and held a number of meetings. Some people came to the surgery that I organised. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North was not able to make it, but other Members came and talked about this point. In the consultation, we did propose providing discretionary payments only for travel and accommodation costs. We addressed this issue because, prior to launching the consultation, one of the main criticisms of the current system raised by different groups of beneficiaries and their MPs and by the all-party group was that discretionary grants and the process of applying for them was “demeaning”.
However, I am aware that, through the consultation responses, a number of beneficiaries are troubled by the consultation question on discretionary payment, and those voices have been heard today. In principle, discretionary support should be means-tested, which means that it will vary with circumstances over time. However, it has become clear that, through the independent charitable schemes, a relatively small number of individuals  are receiving regular and significant levels of discretionary—as opposed to regular—support. I encourage anyone who feels that they are in this position, or would lose out as a result of the consultation proposals on discretionary support, to reply to the consultation explaining that. No decisions have been made about some of the other discretionary elements on which Members have touched. I hope that clarifies the distinction between our assessment of the impact of annual payments and the impact of discretionary payments, some of which could not be known to us because they were put out through independent charitable schemes.
I welcome any suggestions that respondents may have in relation to the proposals and what would be of benefit to them. This, along with the rest of the consultation responses, will help us to decide what we might be able to do within the budget. We are well aware that some of the non-financial elements of support, which are currently provided by the charitable schemes, are valued. I want to reassure colleagues that we are entirely open-minded about this provision. As I have emphasised previously, it is up to people to tell us through the consultation what they most value in that non-financial support.
Let me touch on the Scottish reforms. Clearly, that has been quite a key theme today. I have been asked to consider matching the recent reforms. The Scottish Government established a financial review group, as we heard, and they announced their plans on 18 March. The package announced by the Scottish Government differs from the proposals on which the Department is consulting. One major difference is in relation to annual payments provided to infected individuals. The Department of Health proposals for England are intended to ensure long-term stability and security to all infected individuals. The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) made a point about long-term security and sustainability. To reiterate, in England, there are about 2,400 individuals with hepatitis C stage 1 who do not receive any annual payment. Our proposal is to provide a new ongoing payment to all those individuals that reflects the level of ill health that they experience. The Scottish Government have chosen to provide a lump sum payment.

Gerald Kaufman: rose—

Jane Ellison: I am really sorry—I will barely get through the points that I have to make.

Gerald Kaufman: Is the hon. Lady going to answer the questions that I put to her?

Jane Ellison: I am sorry. I have made a note in the margin of my speech to respond directly to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, if I can get to it. I will try to deal with all the points that were made, and if I do not, I will write to Members after the debate.
The Scottish Government have chosen to provide a lump sum payment, and they currently have no proposals for annual payments to the hepatitis C stage 1 group. To give an idea of the difference, in England, over a five-year period, a stage 1 hep C sufferer who currently gets nothing but is awarded the highest proposed annual payment of £15,000 would receive £75,000. Officials from the Department of Health and the Scottish Government continue to exchange views on scheme reform, and we will reflect on the points that have been made today.
Let me touch briefly on the point about Wales and Northern Ireland. It is a matter for the Welsh and Northern Irish Governments to decide how support is provided for those infected in their areas, but they could opt to make the same reforms as the Department of Health and, indeed, participate in some administration arrangements following scheme reform. My officials hosted a meeting on 24 March with officials from each of the devolved Administrations to discuss scheme reform, and they will continue to work with their counterparts from the DAs on that.
Let me touch on treatment. I understand the points that have been made. Since I launched the consultation in January, the NHS has committed to doubling the number of patients treated with new therapies to 10,000 in 2016-17. NHS England has allocated £190 million from its budgets for 2016-17 for rolling out treatment with these new therapies. I will take into account this significant recent development, along with the responses to the consultation, when making decisions on treatment and payment for it from the scheme’s allocated fund when the consultation has closed. I have noted the clear steers Members have given me about treatment being taken forward by the NHS. I emphasise, however, that legally, the NHS cannot prioritise patients according to route of infection, and can only do so according to clinical need, as Members will understand.
Turning to where we go next, the outcome of the consultation will be crucial in informing our final decisions on how to proceed. We will analyse and reflect on all the responses, and although the scheduling of a debate is not in my gift I will seek to provide an opportunity for colleagues to discuss the proposals with me before any final decisions are made. I will continue to keep Opposition Front-Bench teams closely informed, as I have sought to do throughout. I give the House, and those affected, my commitment that we will proceed as rapidly as possible to implementation. However, I recognise that any reforms must be implemented in a measured way, to give those affected time to adjust, and at the same time ensure that there is no disruption to the provision of ongoing support.
I said when announcing the consultation that my intention was that the new annual payments for the current stage 1 cohort should be backdated to April—this month—regardless of when an individual’s assessment took place. I stress that we are very keen that any assessment is simple and light touch. We do not anticipate any interaction with the benefits system, but I will raise with the Department for Work and Pensions the points made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) in his thoughtful contribution. We are aiming for simple, light-touch assessments every few years, and if someone’s health deteriorates we want to be able to respond appropriately.
I have tried to address some of the concerns, but I am conscious that I have not covered all of them. After the debate I will review them and respond if I can. I hope the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) will appreciate that I am not able to answer the points that he raised before the end of the debate.
The consultation will be genuinely open and I urge everyone with an interest to respond. I hope to take matters forward in a constructive and open way.

Diana R. Johnson: rose—

John Bercow: The hon. Lady will have two minutes because I am here and I will insist on it.

Diana R. Johnson: I am grateful, Mr Speaker. We have had an excellent debate. We had more than 23 speakers in the three hours that we were allocated. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us that time. I also thank the many people who travelled from all around the country for the debate to listen to what another Member referred to as the striking unanimity across the Chamber about the problems with the consultation proposals that have been put forward. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) phrased it well when he said, “Don’t tell us you’re sorry. Show us you’re sorry.” That was an excellent phrase.
Finally, let me quote Rudyard Kipling to the Minister. He said:
“Nothing is ever settled until it is settled right.”

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Lady, who was commendably succinct.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises that the contaminated blood scandal was one of the biggest treatment disasters in the history of the NHS, which devastated thousands of lives; notes that for those affected this tragedy continues to have a profound effect on their lives which has rarely been properly recognised; welcomes the Government’s decision to conduct a consultation to reform support arrangements and to commit extra resources to support those affected; further notes, however, that the current Government proposals will leave some people worse off and continue the situation where some of those affected receive no ongoing support; and calls on the Government to take note of all the responses to the consultation and to heed the recommendations of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Haemophilia and Contaminated Blood’s Inquiry into the current support arrangements so as to ensure that no-one is worse off, left destitute or applying for individual payments as a result of the proposed changes and that everyone affected by the tragedy, including widows and dependents, receives support commensurate with the decades of suffering and loss of amenity they have experienced.

TRANSPORT FOR LONDON BILL [LORDS]

Bill, as amended, considered.
New Clause 1

TfL assets (constraints on development)

‘(1) Tfl, or any subsidiary of TfL, shall not lease land to third parties which:
(a) has been used in the preceding 10 years,
(b) has been considered by TfL in the preceding 10 years as suitable, or
(c) is adjacent to land in use or in use in the preceding 10 years,
for the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers.
(2) Before TfL, or any subsidiary of TfL, enters into a contract involving the development of land for other than the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers, it must carry out a public consultation seeking views on the impact of so doing.
(3) Any consultation under subsection (2) must include consultation with:
(a) local communities likely to be affected,
(b) the Greater London Authority,
(c) London boroughs,
(d) the City of London,
(e) relevant trade unions’.—(Andy Slaughter.)
Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Slaughter: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Amendment 1(P), page 1, (Recitals) leave out lines 6 and 7.
Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out “two” and insert “three”.
Amendment 10, page 2, line 5, at end insert
“save as provided for in subsection (3).”
Amendment 11, page 2, line 6, at end insert
“save as provided for in subsection (3).”
Amendment 12, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(3) Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has arranged for, and published the report of, a review of the—
(a) potential risks to the assets of Transport for London arising from the exercise of the relevant powers to be conferred thereby, and
(b) likely effectiveness of measures put in place by Transport for London in mitigation.”
Amendment 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, after “TfL”, insert
“following consultation with the Greater London Assembly, and the publication of a report of such, and”.
Amendment 14, page 2, line 19, leave out “two” and insert “three”.
Amendment 15, page 2, line 25, leave out “two” and insert “three”.
Amendment 16, in clause 4, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
“(1A) The consent of the Mayor under subsection (1) may only be granted after the Mayor has consulted, and published a report of such consultation:
(a) the Greater London Assembly,
(b) the London boroughs,
(c) the City of London,
(d) passenger representative bodies, and
(e) relevant trades unions.”
Amendment 17, page 2, line 38, leave out “all or any” and insert “no more than 25%”.
Amendment 7, page 2, line 38, leave out from “borrows” to end.
Amendment 8, page 3, line 4, leave out from “borrowed” to “indemnity”.
Amendment 18, page 3, line 13, leave out
“Except for the property identified in the Schedule to this Act”.
Amendment 19, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
“(6A) Any consent of the Secretary of State given under subsection (6) above shall be given in an order made by the Secretary of State.
(6B) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) an order under subsection (6A) above shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(6C) An order under subsection (6A) above shall in each case include-
(a) the land registry title number or numbers of any property or properties to be charged, and
(b) a specification of the proprietor or proprietors of the charge.
(6D) The proprietor or proprietors of the charge under subsection (6C)(b) may not be a joint venture partner of Transport for London or one of its subsidiaries.”
Amendment 2(P), page 3, line 24, leave out clause 5.
Amendment 3(P), in clause 6, page 4, line 19, leave out “or a limited partnership”.
Amendment 4(P), page 4, leave out line 21 and insert “a member; or”.
Amendment 5(P), page 4, leave out lines 37 and 38.
Amendment 6(P), page 4, line 39, leave out “(c)” and insert “(b)”.
Amendment 20, in the schedule, page 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (c), at end add
“subject to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction that TfL has undertaken, or caused to be undertaken, an effective risk assessment in respect of the impact on public health of such use.”
Amendment 21, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (d).
Amendment 22, page 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (i), at end add
“provided such property is not located within the curtilage of a bus, rail or underground station.”
Amendment 23, page 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (o), at end add
“provided such property is not located within the curtilage of a bus, rail or underground station.”
Amendment 24, page 6, line 19, paragraph 1(k), after “machines”, insert
“and other property which is exploited for commercial purposes other than within stations.”
Amendment 25, page 6, line 19, paragraph 1(k), leave out from the first "stations" to the end of the sub-paragraph.
Amendment 26, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (k).
Amendment 27, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (m).
Amendment 28, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (n).

Andrew Slaughter: We have a single grouping of amendments to deal with in what might be the last outing of this interesting and important Bill, after some five and a half years of its progress through both Houses. I shall speak to the large number of amendments in my name. The remainder stand in the name of the promoters of the Bill, and no doubt the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) will address his reason for tabling them. I welcome the concessions that are marked by the promoters’ amendments, which may shorten considerably the length of the debate today.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend will recall from our discussion in November that one of my particular concerns about the way in which Transport for London has engaged on this Bill and other property development matters related to the future of Harrow-on-the-Hill station and the access issues pertaining to it. My hon. Friend may not be aware that I have had the opportunity to meet Graeme Craig, property director of TfL. It was a helpful meeting, but it left me worrying that although TfL has plans to improve the access arrangements at Harrow-on-the-Hill station, it does not plan to put any resource into them. Is there anything in my hon. Friend’s amendments or in the remaining parts of the Bill that might help to deal with that concern, which my constituents are likely to be very worried about?

Andrew Slaughter: That is a complex question—perhaps even more complex than my hon. Friend divines, despite his huge knowledge and intellect. It goes to the heart of the Bill and the fact that TfL has got itself into a sort of spiral with property developers and, as a result, does not know where it is going or where its best interests and those of its customers lie. Is its primary objective to uphold and improve its infrastructure, stock and services? Is it to compensate for the billions of pounds being withdrawn very cynically by the Chancellor, or is it going into a whole new area of operation where it will become some kind of poor man’s property developer?
I think that my hon. Friend will get the answer if he stays for the whole debate—if not, he may have to look at Hansard. My short answer to him now is that no one, not even the strongest opponents of the Bill—I include myself, the petitioners and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers in that bracket—would not wish TfL to maximise its income and its opportunities for development and to be able to develop on its operational and non-operational land and, in the process, improve its facilities. I hope that we have made substantial progress—although, it has been like drawing teeth over these five-plus years—but I am not sure that I can give him a full assurance that that will be the case as a consequence of this Bill.
However, I can give my hon. Friend a full assurance that from 5 May, when our right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) will be installed as Mayor of London, the importance of stations such as  Harrow-on-the-Hill will be foremost in his mind. I have visited Harrow-on-the-Hill and know that it could do with a great deal of improvement. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to fight strongly for that.

Ruth Cadbury: Surely the purpose of TfL is to provide the best, most efficient and most cost-efficient transport services for this great city of London. Is it not therefore right that it uses its assets in the best way to achieve that aim? Does my hon. Friend think that this Bill will achieve that objective in such a way that we can have confidence that TfL can use its resources to best effect to achieve its core aim?

Andrew Slaughter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Certainly, my amendments—I will go through them one by one—are designed to improve the Bill in the way she suggests. I will add a slight rider to what she says, however, because I think that TfL, as a public authority, has a slighter wider duty. We see that in the way it has disposed of assets in a cavalier fashion, entered into inappropriate deals with property developers and—perhaps most worrying of all in the context of the Bill—set out at this stage to say that its future priority, perhaps understandably, given the amount of money it is losing to the Treasury, will be to maximise the commercial opportunity of the land it holds. That sounds fine, if the money is going to subsidise fare payers. However, if it produces the type of development that is harmful to the London economy as a whole, and to Londoners—for example, by excluding affordable housing from its prime sites—then I think it needs to be brought up short. The problem is that TfL is trying to do several things at once. Yes, I am sure that it is trying to do as much as it can to subsidise its operations, but at the same time it is taking very risky steps in the deals it is doing with property developers. Part of that will be cured by the withdrawal of clause 5, but not all of it.

Gareth Thomas: I take my hon. Friend back to Harrow-on-the-Hill station, because it is clear that TfL will have to go higher in any housing development, potentially reducing the amount of affordable housing, in order to pay for the access works required. Does he not think that it would be better if TfL, using the funding it currently has for making stations accessible, matched the funding that Harrow Council is willing to put into those access requirements, rather than just building ever higher blocks of housing to pay for it?

Andrew Slaughter: I am always pleased to be taken back to Harrow-on-the-Hill station, although my hon. Friend normally cons me into going there for canvassing sessions that tend to go on for four or five hours. He is absolutely right that there has to be a balancing act between the needs of the travelling public and whatever development TfL is doing, and I think TfL has abdicated its wider responsibility in trying to get that balance right.
I do understand the problems TfL has, which have become very clear since the comprehensive spending review and the last Budget. There has been a massive withdrawal of funds, so there will be no revenue subsidy whatever, which puts TfL in an invidious position. However, it cannot simply abdicate any responsibility and say, “We will build as high as we can. We will build  the sort of accommodation that is least useful to ordinary Londoners, because that is the way the land lies.” That is not the way a public authority should behave. I hope that the sort of innovative proposals my hon. Friend is putting forward are exactly what the new Mayor will put pressure on TfL to adopt.
Let me start to look at the proposals in more detail. I have some more general comments to make about the Bill, but assuming that we get through Report, which I think we will, we have Third Reading, so I will reserve those more general critical comments until then.

Gareth Thomas: Moving on from Harrow-on-the-Hill station, will my hon. Friend deal with the concern that he and many others of us alluded to last November regarding the so-called tax-efficient limited liability partnership model that TfL wanted to use for its property developments? Can he shed any light on how TfL’s plans have changed in relation to that vehicle in the light of the obviously devastating disclosures in the Panama papers?

Andrew Slaughter: A lot of the credit must go to Lord Dubs, who obtained a substantial concession in the other place when clause 5 was withdrawn. The chronology is that that preceded the Panama papers, but I suspect that TfL is breathing a sigh of relief, given that its proposals may have come under even more scrutiny had the clause remained in the Bill. I wait with interest to hear what the promoters say about the reasons for the withdrawal of clause 5. Personally, I am just glad that it is has been withdrawn, although I am puzzled they appeared prepared to die in a ditch for it over a period of years and then, following the debate in the main Chamber and the revival motions in the other place, decided to give in gracefully. What their reasoning was for doing that, I am still not quite sure, but I am grateful that it happened.
To that extent, the issue, which was of concern to the large number of Members who attended the last debate here, has gone away, but not entirely, as my hon. Friend will see when I talk about clause 4, which still tempts TfL—if I can put it that way—to enter into relationships with companies that may have a dubious past, present or future. Amendment 7 and consequential amendment 8 are designed to remove that temptation.

Gareth Thomas: Before my hon. Friend turns to his proposed amendments, may I take him back again to our debate last November? There was substantial concern among Labour Members about the lack of commitment shown by the TfL management to building a significant amount of affordable housing in any large housing development. I understand that TfL is seeking to move on from that position—I am thinking of a particular site that my hon. Friend knows very well. Has he received confirmation that TfL is now more committed to affordable housing?

Andrew Slaughter: Like my hon. Friend, I recently had a lengthy meeting with Graeme Craig and other TfL lawyers and senior managers. The reasonable assurance that I was given was that no firm decisions would be taken on any of the London sites—save for one, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford)—until after the mayoral election, which I think is right.
London Members in particular were concerned that TfL was being disingenuous. It was saying in the free pages it gets in the Metro paper that part of its development strategy was to build affordable housing, but the reality was that it planned to build no affordable housing whatsoever on its prime sites in zones 1 and 2. It said that there might be elements in zones 3, 4, 5 and 6, but that was simply not satisfactory. Let us consider the issue after the mayoral election. It is clearly a matter for each individual planning application, but I would hope that Labour councillors in London would look askance at any proposal that did not include affordable housing.
One of the first three sites proposed was in Parsons Green, which is not quite in my constituency, but it is in my borough. That application has been withdrawn and is being rethought, because the proposals were either not sufficient or not the right type of affordable housing. We know that “affordable housing” is now a term of art and that, when used by this Government, it usually means housing that is affordable to nobody who is not on a seven-figure income.
Let me turn to the amendments standing in my name. I am very grateful for the substantial support I have received from a number of people at the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers in preparing the amendments and, indeed, throughout the whole Bill process. They have been extremely assiduous in providing their expertise, obtaining counsel’s opinion and providing briefings on the Bill. The three public petitioners—Richard Osband, Jos Bell and Anabela Hardwick—not only contributed to that important part of the process, but have been stalwarts in scrutinising the Bill and providing briefings on it. Many Members, not just members of the RMT and London MPs, have also shown an interest; when we last debated the Bill, there were 20 to 30 Members present. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who will get a special TfL Bill badge for being here tonight.

Gareth Thomas: A further concern that was aired when we last debated the Bill in November was that the advisory board that TfL had set up to help it with its property development contained no significant social housing providers. Does my hon. Friend sense that TfL has now changed its position and that it is now balancing out the interests of those hard and fast traditional developers with the need for proper social housing to be part of the mix on the sites overseen by the Mayor and TfL?

Andrew Slaughter: I am not aware that that has happened. To give TfL the benefit of the doubt, it, like many in London, awaits the outcome of the mayoral election and will take its lead from that. Although I strongly anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting will be the Mayor—so, I believe, do the bookmakers, who have started paying out on him—I do not think, whoever wins the mayoral election, that we could be worse off than we are at the moment with a Mayor who has set his face against affordable housing. He, and the people he has appointed to be his agents in the matter, have cynically allowed the term “affordable housing” to become more abused than used.

Gareth Thomas: I intervene again on my hon. Friend to suggest that he might want to use at least a portion of his speech on the amendments to encourage the promoter of the Bill to take back from the debate the concern that TfL has no social housing providers in its property development group. That needs to change. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) is elected, we might be able to go directly to him. Perhaps we can encourage the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) to use the influence he has on TfL in the drafting of the Bill in that regard now.

Andrew Slaughter: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend has made the point very well, and I cannot add anything to it. I intended to say one or two things about housing, but I think I will say them on Third Reading. They relate more to the general principles of the Bill and TfL’s approach to the Bill than to the amendments that we are dealing with.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend has a modest style, but may I encourage him to say two further things on the question of whether social housing providers are invited to sit on TfL’s property board? First, will he urge my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) to encourage TfL to listen to our concerns about the absence of a social housing provider? Secondly, will he encourage the Minister to use his influence with TfL to persuade it to put social housing providers at the top of its property development work and on to its property development advisory group?

Andrew Slaughter: I absolutely concur with that. I suspect that, like me, my hon. Friend finds housing to be the single biggest issue in his constituency at the moment. We have reached a ludicrous stage in London whereby in many constituencies, including his and mine, it is simply impossible and unaffordable for anybody—not just those who have low incomes or average means, but those who are earning good wages—to access property of any kind. That applies to private rented, owner occupied and even what is cynically called affordable housing. That position has been exacerbated by Government policy and by some local authorities in London over a number of years.
It will take a long time to turn the situation around. It is possible, but it is difficult, and one of the quickest ways to do it is by the use of public land. TfL, as it constantly tells us, is one of the major public landowners in London. There are many others. I have the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation in my constituency, and 70% of that land—the largest regeneration site in the UK—is owned by Network Rail. It will shortly be owned by the OPDC. It is not just TfL that owns land; Government Departments also do so. That is the most immediate and instant solution to the problem, which I suspect Members from all parts of the House would admit of. Even Members who represent constituencies outside London probably have experience of the London property market and know that the situation cannot be allowed to continue.
Even with its current budget constraints, it is wrong for TfL to say, “Nothing to do with us, guv; we are just a railway company.” Of course it is primarily a railway company, and of course its job is primarily to make sure that we have a safe, secure and efficient railway that has capacity. That is a difficult enough task, but TfL cannot  abdicate its responsibility, and it certainly should not be making the situation worse by engaging in development that involves no affordable housing.

Gareth Thomas: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Slaughter: I will give way one more time, but then I must get on.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend is right to say that housing is a huge issue in my constituency, as it clearly is in many constituencies across London. Like him, I want the public land that TfL has available to be used to create more affordable housing in particular, as well as housing units more generally. Does he accept that TfL needs to take into account a further consideration, which is the character and conservation needs of the space in which such public land will be available? In that context, I think of Harrow on the Hill—not Harrow-on-the-Hill station, but the area in my constituency. Any large TfL blocks of flats will still need to allow local people to see the iconic views of Harrow on the Hill. It is crucial to preserve the character of such areas.

Andrew Slaughter: That is right. I am afraid that almost every planning application for residential development I now see ignores all the basic principles and tenets of building on a human scale, with sufficient amenity space and in such a way that impossible constraints are not imposed on existing neighbourhoods in terms of congestion, overlooking and environmental pollution, while also almost entirely excluding social infrastructure, such as hospitals and schools.
This is not the way London was built. Ironically, in the Victorian era—when the railways were built, and the suburbs expanded along those routes—we had far less town planning than we do now, but they somehow managed to build liveable communities, with all such factors. The combination of greed on the part of the developers and desperation on the part of much of the public sector means that we are now building monstrosities that nobody will want to live in.

Ruth Cadbury: To make another observation, if I may, about liveable communities, TfL owns a lot of shopfronts and high street properties. Is it not beholden on TfL, when it develops properties, to give some consideration to the kind of uses that such retail frontages are put to so that we ensure that they provide a usable range of businesses and services for the communities living in the new flats, which will of course include a significant proportion of affordable units?

Andrew Slaughter: That is another very good point. I am afraid that it is another one on which TfL does not have a terribly good record. In Brixton market or Shepherd’s Bush market, which I am very familiar with, there are many historical amenities, including retail areas—they have been there for decades, if not, in some cases, for centuries—of which TfL has been the custodian, that are now under threat. Again, that is simply because the bottom line always has to take precedence.
Such an approach is often self-defeating, because we end up building a white elephant. The best example I can give is the Hammersmith Broadway. TfL pressed ahead with that development some 30 years ago. Nobody wanted it, and it ruined the town centre, as we thought,  for the foreseeable future. However, we have now found out that there are plans to pull the whole thing down and start again. Even within its own rather limited and pedestrian view, which is to make the maximum capital out of it, such an approach often does not work. We must have schemes that actually work—work with existing communities, and work in terms of long-term commercial prospects—rather than something that looks as though it will provide a quick subsidy for the sort of works at Harrow on the Hill that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West.
Let me press on. I am almost the last man standing in this debate—not quite, because I have had the assistance of my hon. Friend and of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, who have a particular interest in this matter—but it has had a glorious number of supporters so far. I see that the shadow Chancellor has joined us on the Front Bench. I will spare his blushes, but I was just about to pay tribute to what he and the Leader of the Opposition have done. They have really cracked the whip on the Bill. If he has looked at the amendment paper, he will have spotted that I have filched quite a large number of his amendments to propose myself. I would not have done that if they were not excellent in their own right. I will not speak to them at great length.

John Martin McDonnell: Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the drafting quality of the amendments?

Andrew Slaughter: They are much better than I could have done. They could not be improved upon by the Clerks, so they get 10 out of 10, not just for their eloquence and presentation but for their content.
If I may, I will deal with the consolidated amendments in three parts, and will come to the promoter’s amendments last of all. In a moment, I will look at two amendments in particular, amendment 7 and amendment 8, which is consequential on amendment 7. I will be looking for a response from the promoter on those. They contain a serious and, to some extent, new point. To show my hand at this stage, amendment 7 is the one amendment I am thinking of pressing to a vote. I am only thinking of doing so, however—it will depend on what the Front-Bench spokesperson and the promoter say. I will explain my logic in a moment.
I will go through the rest of the amendments at some speed. A few might be probing, but they are mainly what we might call improving amendments. They try to make sure that the Bill’s deficiencies—it is rather hasty and secretive, and tries to provoke unwise decisions that have not had proper consideration—can be mitigated in some way. I ask the promoter and the Government to look at them in the spirit in which they have been tabled. I am not very hopeful, because when that same point was made in the first part of Report, in March 2015—my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was proposing the amendments at that stage—the promoter said he was not going to accept any of them, which I thought was a little churlish. They are genuinely intended to be improving. Let me explain what I mean by that.
I will start with new clause 1. That measure is slightly different. It flushes out one of the problems that we thought we had got rid of with TfL, but I am now not sure that we have. In its enthusiasm to sell off its assets to the highest bidder and to maximise commercial return, TfL sometimes ends up selling off land that it needs now or might need in future. That is slightly counterproductive, because with London property, when it is gone, it is gone. Any public authority that tries to buy back land that has been used from a commercial developer—even if, as in this case, that might be a joint partner—will find the price very high. The developer knows that the railway will absolutely need that piece of land so it will be treated as a ransom strip.
New clause 1 says:
“TfL, or any subsidiary of TfL, shall not lease land to third parties which…has been used in the preceding 10 years…has been considered by TfL in the preceding 10 years as suitable, or…is adjacent to land in use or in use in the preceding 10 years, for the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers.”
Let me give one example, a very big one and probably the one that the promoter thinks I am going to give: Lillie Bridge depot.
Lillie Bridge depot is one third of the Earls Court and West Kensington opportunity development. As is the case for many others, much of my interest in the Bill has been engendered by that very development, which, until Old Oak and Park Royal comes onstream, is the biggest in London. It is a multibillion pound scheme. It consists of three parts, two of which are, or were, owned in their entirety by TfL. I will not talk about this now; I will talk about it on Third Reading. The way that part one of the scheme has been handled—admittedly under the existing rules, because the Bill has not been passed into law—has been so disastrous and cataclysmic for my constituents and the wider London economy that it bodes very badly for what may come forward.
It could be even worse from TfL’s point of view, because Lillie Bridge depot, the second part of the site—the two or three parts are roughly the same size, between 20 and 25 acres each—is a working depot for TfL. It employs about 550 people. It has stabling for District line trains, and major manufacturing and workshop areas. To all intents and purposes, it is an essential part of the operation of TfL. Unfortunately, the view put forward by TfL’s property division is that it can all go. I have a letter here from Graeme Craig, whom I referred to earlier, from 26 March 2014. It says:
“TfL is committed to bringing forward the development of LBD”—
Lillie Bridge depot—
“in accordance with the approved masterplan or such updated planning permissions as may be approved by the Council. TfL is not able to commit at this stage to how and with whom the development of LBD is to be delivered if it is proved feasible to do so. However, given the establishment of JVCo to develop Earls Court Village and ECP’s control of other interests, it would make commercial sense in due course for both parties to fully explore the potential benefits which could arise should we combine our respective remaining land interests.”
That was a scandalous letter to write and I am pleased to say that Mr Craig gave me an assurance that no deal has been, or would be, entered into with Capco for the development of the Lillie Bridge depot before the mayoral election. What has happened in that area is on the basis of no ownership of that portion of land and on the basis of a masterplan devised by Capco itself. TfL, in a  very craven way, just decided to give up the land and develop it with Capco without looking at any other possibilities.
Obviously, there is now a delay. Even TfL has to admit that a fully operational depot of that kind, with all the facilities in situ that I have talked about, cannot be closed down overnight. It is talking about not developing it for about another five years, but it is certainly looking to sign agreements to do so in advance. That is exactly the type of mischief that new clause 1 is designed to prevent.
It is not only because of the points made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West that we need to worry about what type of development is going to go on TfL land; we need to worry about what is going to happen with current usage, either in the case of Lillie Bridge where there is current transport usage, or if there is a potential transport usage. This is absolutely recognised in the HS2 Bill, where HS2 is able to compulsorily purchase, acquire and protect land ancillary to the line, stations or other essential infrastructure that is being developed—for good reason.
Whatever we think of HS2, we cannot allow major infrastructure projects and essential lifelines of the transport system to be put at risk by private development in this way. I therefore ask, without a great deal of hope or expectation, for support for new clause 1. Even if there is not to be support in that way, I still ask for a clear statement of policy from the sponsor on behalf of TfL as to how it intends to protect the operational benefits of TfL. This is not a pious or notional idea. TfL is going into the property development game big time. It is looking at thousands of acres of land across London with transport or ancillary transport uses—by definition, most of its non-operational land is adjacent to its operational land—in a way that I do not believe it is prepared for and that would be a quantum leap in how it operates. All we are saying is that there needs to be safeguards. We need to ensure that it does not shoot itself, or the travelling public, in the foot by giving away, tying up or otherwise compromising land in that way, which, I am afraid, is exactly what has happened in the past.

Ruth Cadbury: My hon. Friend makes a strong point about the risk of taking land out of operational use or losing land that could be put into operational use should transport demands change. Would it not therefore be appropriate to undertake a fully transparent assessment of all TfL’s land prior to any deals being done by the private sector that might take land out of operational use?

Andrew Slaughter: I am grateful for that intervention, because transparency is very important here. We have asked several times for a terrier of TfL property so we can know exactly what sites are owned and where they are. I certainly think that all London MPs should be entitled to know what sites reside in their own constituencies. That is the first point: we need to know what we are dealing with here. I agree entirely.
Subsections (2) and (3) of new clause 1 would introduce what is a theme in other amendments: the need to consult. We need to consult the public, who fund TfL through their taxes and fares, and the responsible elected  bodies—the GLA and the London boroughs—before these decisions are taken. It is absolutely the case that TfL, in the past, certainly before it came under the Mayor’s control, behaved like a medieval baron. It was extraordinarily unaccountable. There is nothing as unaccountable as a public body with no democratic accountability. At least one can sit down with private sector organisations, talk to them and reach a deal. When dealing with organisations such as TfL, as was, or the NHS, as is, one often finds oneself intruding on the privacy of these organisations. Despite their being fully funded by the taxpayer, they have no mechanism for such engagement, which takes us back to the point made by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Harrow West about ensuring that the boards of these organisations have proper representation of the public and other interests. I therefore say in new clause 1 that the public, as well as the London boroughs and the GLA, should be consulted before contracts for development are entered into.
Part of the role of the Mayor should be to ensure that that democratic element is put in train. I have to say I have not seen any sign of that under the current Mayor. I have found that TfL’s decision making has been just as opaque, and I am hoping we will see a sea change in that. I believe that all public bodies, irrespective of their primary function, have a wider public duty. With local authorities, that is generally accepted. Indeed, there is now legislation saying that they have a community role and function to look after the general interest of their communities, as well as specific individual functions. We have moved a long way from the Nicholas Ridley days of their meeting once a year and handing out contracts. Similarly, other public bodies have a wider role. At the end of the day, such public bodies are taxpayer funded and have a responsibility to the communities in which they reside. We require private developers, through the community infrastructure levy and section 106 agreements, to make a contribution in that way, and I believe that public bodies should equally make a contribution. That is what I am asking for.
That theme is continued in my amendments 9 to 16, which I will deal with more briefly. I feel that this is rather a pinched Bill that wants to do things in a hurry. Whenever steps are to be taken, they are taken within two months, but I think three months would be the normal and more appropriate period of time. I am not sure where the two-month period has come from.
So far as amendments 9, 10, 11 and 12 are concerned, the Bill grants TfL substantial new powers. It is right to say that the two major operative clauses have now been dropped. The first, dropped at a relatively early stage in the House of Lords, was a scandalous attempt to get land sales done without any oversight by the Secretary of State or anyone else. The other is the clause being dropped today, which would have allowed these rather dubious property ventures to be entered into. However, there is still quite a lot of substance here, and we are right to look critically at what the Bill says in those respects.
Clause 1 states that the powers given in clause 4 will come into force at the end of the period of two months, while clause 3 states that the appointed day is at the end of that same two-month period. I see nothing wrong with three months. I am sure that the promoter will enlighten me if there is a particularly good reason for  having two rather than the more common three months. I also say—this is provided for in amendment 12—that none of these provisions should come into force until there has been
“a review of the…potential risks to the assets of Transport for London arising from the exercise of the relevant powers…and…likely effectiveness of measures put in place by Transport for London in mitigation.”
Some may say that this is rather belt and braces, but I tabled this amendment because of experience. My experience is that TfL has not always behaved with the degree of probity or reserve that is necessary, and has got itself into a mess; later I shall quote the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, who put it in slightly less polite language than that. It is a case of once bitten, twice shy. Where a public body does not have a good track record on consulting and making the right decisions on matters outside its core remit, and where it proposes a massive expansion in the work it does, we are entitled to ask first for a longer pause for proper assessments and reviews, and for consultation. Amendment 16 is relevant here. I am not asking for consultation not with every Tom, Dick and Harry, but with those who have a legitimate interest as the elected representatives of the people of London.
I shall say no more on that. I shall not dwell on those amendments any further. They are improving amendments. They do nothing more than that, and I say the same about amendment 19, which adds to clause 4. It simply sets out in more detail what should happen when consent is given by the Secretary of State under the clause. It says that there should be a proper process, and that it should be dealt with through a statutory instrument.
Amendments 7 and 8 relate to what I shall call my major residual concern; most of my concerns about the Bill have been dealt with. Let me be clear that nobody—no Labour Member in the hall of fame of those who have worked on the Bill—doubts the need for TfL to be as solvent as possible, or to subsidise fares as far as possible. In proposing amendments to clause 4(2), we are not suggesting that it should not be open to TfL—this is a major change in the Bill—to use its property as security for money that it borrows. The idea is essentially to enable TfL to borrow cheaply. It has the power to borrow at present, but it does not have the power to secure that borrowing against its substantial assets, and I see no reason why it should not be able to do so. However, I do think that the phrase
“Those things are the charging by a TfL subsidiary of all or any of its property as security for money which it borrows”
goes a little bit too far, although it may be simply a term of art. That is why, in amendment 17, I have proposed the substitution of the words “no more than 25%” for the words “all or any”. That is still a substantial proportion of TfL’s property, and I should have thought that such sums would be at least sufficient to fund anything that it could be required to do. The Minister may say that the Government do not intend to allow TfL to mortgage its entire estate, but I think that a little clarity would be advisable.
The main purpose of amendments 7 and 8 is to ensure that, while TfL is permitted to borrow against its own property for the purpose of legitimate investment opportunities, it is not allowed to borrow for the purpose  of providing guarantees or indemnities for third parties. The reason for that is, I should have thought, pretty obvious. While debating this Bill, we have engaged in long discussions about TfL’s conduct in the context of its new-found policy of joint venture with its private sector partners. I do not, in principle, oppose that new policy. The logic of it is that, rather than disposing of assets, TfL will acquire a capital sum that could be invested to give a return. It will embark on a joint venture with a development partner of some kind, and will then have both a retained stake in the land and a revenue stream from its development. I see nothing wrong with that, and it seems to fit better into the picture in which TfL needs such a revenue stream more than ever before. Our objection is to the type of partner and the type of deal with which TfL has been involved.
However, the same logic could be applied to TfL’s borrowing. Borrowing for its own purposes and its own uses against its assets is one thing, but borrowing in order to guarantee or indemnify a third party strikes me as completely different. I should like reassurance from the Bill’s sponsor before deciding whether the issue should be put to a vote. In explaining why I say that, I must return to the experience of Earl’s Court. Not only is it the experience that is most familiar to me, but it is a massive project.
A deal was done whereby a piece of land wholly owned, freehold, by TfL, with some leasehold interests—in some cases quite short leasehold interests—is held by its development partner, Capco. That has been converted into a joint venture. TfL is the minority stakeholder, with 37%, and therefore does not have a controlling interest in what happens to the land. The joint venture company’s purchase price of the TfL land, with the Capco leasehold interest, appears to be substantially below the market price—perhaps by as much as a factor of three, if we compare the price paid, £335 million, with the current valuation of the asset by Capco, which is in excess of £1 billion. Moreover, it is being paid for by the interest-free loan from TfL. Where is the risk, and where is the cost to the private sector partner?
Let us remember that the private sector partner is not the international property company Capco; it is, in that hallowed phrase so often used by the petitioners, and particularly by Mr Osband, a £2 company based in Jersey with no other assets, and which could disappear off the face of the earth, leaving TfL to pick up any liabilities at the end of the day. I and many others were worried that that was the type of property deal that TfL was entering into, and we hope that that worry will now be removed, certainly for any new ventures, by the withdrawal of clause 5. However, such arrangements remain a possibility in relation to how the secured borrowing by TfL would be put to work.
What is the rationale behind allowing TfL to indemnify or guarantee third parties by borrowing against its own assets in that way? What do the fare payer and taxpayer get out of that? TfL owns the asset, which it is putting up as security. It is borrowing the money and using it for the guarantee or the indemnity. I can see how that will benefit the party that is being offered the guarantee or being indemnified, but I cannot see how it will sufficiently or safely benefit TfL. I need an answer on this point.
I also need to deal with amendment 18 and amendments 21 and beyond. I do not intend to press these amendments to a vote; I am simply looking for explanations. Clause 4(6) states:
“Except for the property identified in the Schedule to this Act, a TfL subsidiary may not charge any property for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2) without the consent of the Secretary of State.”
I do not understand why such a division is being made, and I have therefore made some suggestions. I use the word “I” in the broadest sense here, because this was originally the conceit of the shadow Chancellor, who is much wiser on these matters than I am. However, I have adopted his logic and his argument here. I do not see why the consent of the Secretary of State should not be needed in all cases. That is why I propose in amendment 18 to leave out the words:
“Except for the property identified in the Schedule to this Act”.
Failing that, I have set out certain points in the schedule that could be changed. I shall not go into detail here.
I am assuming—perhaps “guessing” would be a better word—that there is some rationale behind this decision, and that a property that may be charged without the consent of the Secretary of State would be more remote from the ordinary operational duties of TfL. That is to say that the Secretary of State would have more of an interest in land that was being used for railway purposes than in land that was simply lying fallow or being put to some non-railway use. I am not quite sure of the logic behind that, however, because both types of land would still constitute a substantial public asset. This seems to be going back to the intention of the original clause, now withdrawn, which would have allowed anything to be sold off without the consent of the Secretary of State.
I have suggested that certain modifications be made to certain parts of the schedule, particularly in relation to land that might ostensibly be non-operational but might still be within the curtilage of, or adjacent to, operational land. However, I am still looking for an explanation as to why the consent of the Secretary of State should not be needed in all cases. A concession was made earlier by TfL, and I am not quite sure why, having made that concession, it has effectively gone back on it by listing substantial parts of its property in the schedule. That is all I have to say about that.
The withdrawal of clause 5 is welcome, although I do not understand the timing or the logic. We may get an explanation, but perhaps I should not look a gift a horse in the mouth, as it appeared to be at the heart of the Bill. After the old clause 4 was dropped early on over the Secretary of State’s consent, clause 5 appeared to be the heart of the Bill and TfL fought tooth and nail for it. TfL made some concessions in Committee under severe scrutiny from the public petitioners and following the sterling work of the Committee’s members, but it did not withdraw the clause entirely. We had long debate on it here, but it did not withdraw the clause. The time for the Bill elapsed, and the previous Parliament ended. The Bill then had to be revived, and that revival debate took place both here and in the other place, and the clause was suddenly dropped. That is welcome, but I ask why, and why at this stage.
I will not go through this again, because I covered it, in parentheses, earlier, but we know what the problem was. It was set out time and again to TfL in private  meetings, in this Chamber and elsewhere. It was set out by the RMT in negotiations, and by members of the public. We do not believe, either as a commercial matter or as a matter of public policy, that it should be open to TfL, or any other public authority, to go into the sort of deals that it was contemplating doing with limited partnerships, which allowed the sort of partners that Capco was setting up to do the deals over Earl’s Court. Although that is a big scheme, it would have paled into insignificance beside the many hundreds of schemes that TfL is preparing to run.
I say thank you, because the change is a positive step, but I wonder why it is has happened. We obviously do not oppose it, and are pleased that it will be made tonight, but let us shine a light on it, and get a bit of the transparency that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth was talking about a few moments ago. TfL fought for more than five years to retain the clause, so why is it disappearing now?

Robert Goodwill: I reiterate that the Department supports TfL’s commercial programme. We want TfL to maximise its unique position to ensure that its assets generate revenues to their greatest potential. Giving TfL greater financial flexibility will provide it with the opportunity to run its business in a more efficient way, to the benefit of taxpayers and fare payers. For those reasons, the Government continue to support the Bill and do not support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), which would generally have the effect of watering down the Bill.

Ruth Cadbury: That aim is creditable, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) gave a number of examples of where he has concerns about TfL’s ability to negotiate effectively and to make the best of its opportunities. The Opposition have some concerns about the private sector’s ability to pull the wool over the eyes of public sector bodies—even those as large and experienced as TfL.

Robert Goodwill: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I may be a bit old-fashioned, but I quite like a principle called democracy. London has devolution of power, democratically elected Mayors and other democratically elected members around the city. Giving people the power to make decisions is something that we should do around the country. We should trust the people to elect the right individuals and then trust them to make the right decisions.

Andrew Slaughter: Will the Minister give way?

Robert Goodwill: I will probably regret it, but I will.

Andrew Slaughter: I take slight exception to the term “watered down”. I could have gone on longer, but I thought I had explained pretty fully that this is about not watering down but strengthening the Bill—putting in exactly those democratic elements that the Minister says he wants. I ask him to explain in detail why he objects to the majority of the amendments standing in my name, which simply do what he says: give a surer footing to the Bill.
Separately, on my important amendment 7 and what the Minister says about that, I should say that watering down has been done already by TfL, which has withdrawn the two substantive clauses to the Bill.

Robert Goodwill: Her Majesty’s Government believe that, rather than strengthening the Bill, the hon. Gentleman’s amendments have the effect of watering down the Bill’s provisions or making it more difficult for TfL to use them.
I also note the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) to remove clause 5. The clause would have enabled TfL to join with others in setting up limited partnerships. However, it had been amended, following scrutiny of the Bill by the Opposed Private Bill Committee, to provide that the Secretary of State must consent to the formation of the limited partnership by way of an order debated by both Houses. Given the burden that that would have placed on both Parliament and my Department, and the fact that it would have made it difficult in practice for TfL to enter into any limited partnerships, we support the principle of these amendments. I understand why they have been tabled and support them, perhaps slightly reluctantly.
We have already spent a lot of time talking about these amendments—indeed, we have spent a lot of time talking about this Bill altogether. I will therefore quickly conclude my remarks so that we can make progress.

Daniel Zeichner: I think it is fair to say that this Bill has had an arduous journey through both Houses; a petition to introduce it was presented to Parliament on 29 November 2010. Plenty of people have aged during its passing—some of us visibly. One who has not is my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter); I pay tribute to him as he has clearly improved the Bill during these lengthy discussions. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for their contributions tonight.
Let me take a little time to deal with the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has tabled, as they deserve detailed responses. New clause 1 would ensure that neither TfL nor any subsidiary of TfL would be able to
“lease land to third parties which:
(a) has been used in the preceding 10 years,
(b) has been considered by TfL in the preceding 10 years as suitable, or
(c) is adjacent to land in use or in use in the preceding 10 years,
for the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers.”
That would safeguard significant, useful land from being leased to developers for private profit at the expense of public transport passengers—those who rely on London’s transport system in their everyday lives. However, it would not prevent land from being sold; TfL already holds the power to do that.
The new clause would also compel TfL, or any subsidiary of TfL, to carry out “a public consultation” before entering into a contract involving the development of land for anything other than the provision or maintenance  of transport services for passengers. A process of consultation before using TfL’s land for anything besides transport services is very important, to make sure that local communities have their views and voices heard. The development of land should come from the bottom up, rather than the top down, and with the backing of local people. One need only look at the Earls Court development, for which TfL leased out its assets, to see why my hon. Friend believes that prior consultation before lease and development is so important.
Let me turn to clauses 3 and 4. An insertion to subsection (1) of clause 4 that the consent of the Mayor may be granted to a subsidiary of TfL only after the Mayor has consulted, and published a report of such consultation with, a variety of bodies, including the London Assembly and the London boroughs, is surely welcome. Discussion and collaboration with a range of stakeholders will ensure that a balance between public and private interest is retained. Similarly, the insertion into clause 3 that TfL must consult the Greater London Assembly and publish the report provides greater accountability and transparency. That is important, although we must also beware that the measures imposed on TfL do not become draconian.
A balance must be struck between scrutiny and freedom, and while TfL must act in the public interest, it should also not be restricted more unfairly than other public and private sector bodies. We are sympathetic to the aims of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith. He, along with other Members, has campaigned tirelessly to ensure that this Bill provides the best outcome for Londoners. We are grateful that these amendments will give Ministers and the Bill promoter the opportunity to discuss further provisions in the Bill and to alleviate any remaining concerns, and I welcome their thoughts on that.
Let me turn now to the vexed question of the removal of clause 5, which I understand will happen and which we advocated. Undoubtedly, it was the most controversial element in the Bill, which in our view would have risked TfL entering into opaque limited partnerships. It is quite understandable that, although the clause has been withdrawn, some of my hon. Friends still have reservations about certain elements of this Bill, which is why they have a continuing desire to tweak its text—not least because of the bitter experience of the Earls Court development, to which frequent reference has been made tonight.
With TfL potentially morphing into the role of property developer, I quite understand why my hon. Friends remain concerned and seek reassurance on how new powers will be used. Even without clause 5, these are still significant changes, with significant implications for local councils and communities as TfL comes to exercise these new powers. However, we are pleased that, following the strong objections from Labour Members expressed in previous debates, clause 5 is to be withdrawn.
I must also mention the context against which this Bill has come to fruition. Transport for London recently said that, from 2019, its objective is to cover all of the operational costs of running the tube and bus networks in London through non-Department for Transport grant sources of income. It says:
“We have planned for some time to achieve operational breakeven by running our business more effectively and efficiently.”
That operational independence—for want of a better word—is happening far sooner than anticipated. TfL says that its overall income is being reduced by £2.8 billion over the period to 2020-21. Its resource grant from central Government, worth around £700 million annually, will be completely wiped out by the end of the decade. I would like to stop momentarily and point out, as I have done previously, that this means that London will be the only major European city transport network that will operate without an operational subsidy from Government. The Campaign for Better Transport put it succinctly:
“Almost nobody anywhere in the world runs a sizable public transport network without”
subsidies.
It could well be said that this Conservative Government are cold-shouldering our capital’s transport system. TfL is keen to limit the damage.

Robert Goodwill: The hon. Gentleman is talking about subsidies from the Government. Does he not agree that these are subsidies from taxpayers? They are paying for the subsidies.

Daniel Zeichner: That is a fine distinction. Most of us understand that the reason we pay our taxes is for exactly the kind of high quality transport system that a capital city such as London needs, and it is a huge risk that this Government are taking. The Government are forcing TfL to limit the damage, and they are using ingenious means and utilising existing assets to do so. The Budget indicates that there will be a move towards the full retention of business rates by local authorities, and we welcome the ability of local councils to have control over funding, but this is uncharted territory and we should be in no doubt about the risks to our transport system in London—risks that are a direct consequence of the political choices of this Government.
We want TfL to be modernised and to become a highly efficient public sector organisation. TfL has been making savings, some very difficult and controversial, but in its annual budget in 2014, TfL said that it is
“becoming progressively more difficult to achieve this without compromising our core services.”
This pattern of cuts is visible not just in the capital, but across the country. Cuts to local authority budgets have been extreme, leading the Local Government Association to point out that even if councils stopped filling in potholes, maintaining parks, closed all children’s centres, libraries, museums, leisure centres and turned off every street light they would not have saved enough money to plug the financial black hole they face by 2020. Department for Transport resource funding has been cut by 37%, from £2.6 billion in 2015-16 to £1.8 billion in 2019-20, representing a real terms decline of 71% since 2009-10.
Let us consider the fact that last year a record 8.6 million people were living in London. By 2030, that figure is predicted to reach 10 million. That is the pressure under which TfL finds itself. We are not ideologically opposed to TfL’s maximising the value of its assets to increase the revenue seized by the Treasury. They do what they have to do, and using resources efficiently is important to keep our capital city running.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friends and I expressed concern about certain measures in the Bill, including clause 5, which we have discussed. We are happy with the principle and understand the necessity of TfL’s having greater commercial freedoms, but the implications of those so-called freedoms were problematic. The controversial Earls Court development, a joint venture between TfL and the private developer Capital & Counties, set a worrying precedent for further public-private partnerships. Clause 5 would allow TfL to enter into limited partnerships with private property developers. Those partnerships are vague in legality and opaque in accountability.
I said on Second Reading that we must consider carefully the long-term impact of introducing powers to enter into those partnerships. We are reassured both by the fact that TfL has noted those concerns and by its decision to table amendments to remove clause 5 and references to limited partnerships from the Bill. It is encouraging that our opposition to that problematic part of the Bill was taken into account, and we are pleased with the outcome.
I also spoke on Second Reading about the importance of putting public needs above private profit. Property development to increase TfL’s revenue must not happen without the backing of local communities—those who are affected most directly. Those who bankroll projects should not subsequently be able to steamroller over local people. TfL is obliged to obtain the consent of the Mayor to dispose of an interest in land by sale or by granting a long-term lease. If that land is operational or has been in the previous five years, the Secretary of State for Transport must give his or her consent. It must be noted, however, that that did not prevent the unhappy saga around the developments at Earls Court from unfolding. The balance between the provision of affordable homes on the one hand, and maximising revenue to reinvest in transport, is an extremely significant and fine political judgment. We will be watching closely to ensure that proper balance is secured.
In conclusion, as clause 5 has been shelved, I think we are all hopeful that TfL can now move forward. We are keen to see how TfL uses its commercial freedoms to develop and improve the transport network that keeps our great capital city moving, but we will be watching closely to ensure that profit is used to benefit the public, and not the other way round.

Bob Blackman: I support amendment 1, and consequential amendments 2 to 6, which I tabled on behalf of the promoter.
This is a private Bill promoted by Transport for London, as has been said. It was submitted to the House of Lords in November 2010, and reached this House on 4 March 2014. It took rather a long time to get through the other place. The Commons gave the Bill a Second Reading on 9 September 2014, and it was considered by an Opposed Private Bill Committee on 13 January 2015, where clause 5 was substantially amended. I shall come on to discuss that briefly.
A debate on the consideration stage took place in the last Parliament on Monday 16 March, and those of us who were Members then remember that as an epic occurrence. Many amendments were tabled, and the time allocated for debate expired before proceedings  could be brought to a conclusion. Following the agreement of both Houses to the revival of the Bill in this Parliament, consideration was first proposed on 22 February 2016, but there was an objection, resulting in the need for today’s debate.
The promoter, TfL, has considered carefully the strength of feeling expressed in the previous debate in the House about clause 5. If the clause was introduced, it would allow TfL to engage in limited partnerships. TfL recognised, notwithstanding the amendments to the clause made by the Opposed Private Bill Committee, that serious concerns remained about the possible exercise of powers conferred by the clause and about the lack of transparency arrangements, which was raised by objectors. Accordingly, TfL took the decision not to press for clause 5 to stand part of the Bill. The amendment to which I am speaking would leave out that clause, and the further minor amendments grouped with it are consequential upon the removal of clause 5. I understand that that is accepted across the House.

Andrew Slaughter: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is saying that TfL has listened to the democratic voice of this House and to the wishes of the elected representatives here. Is it as simple as that? If so, that is quite refreshing.

Bob Blackman: We have had substantial debates. The promoters listened to those debates, considered them carefully and decided that in order to ensure the passage of the Bill, rather than prolong the agony and the disputes, it would be better to withdraw the clause and demonstrate in good faith that they would not proceed with that element. That means, of course, that the Bill is substantially changed from its original form.
I shall touch on the amendments proposed by the objectors—in principle, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). If I miss one of the amendments that he is pushing, he will no doubt intervene to clarify that. New clause 1 is substantially that which was debated on 16 March 2015. We had a very long debate on consideration at that time and it was clear that that was not going to proceed.
The present new clause would impose restrictions on the disposal of land and on the development of the land. Prior to the disposal of any land, various tests would have to be satisfied. Prior to carrying out any development other than the development of the land for rail maintenance facilities, consultation would have to be undertaken with a range of consultees, including unnamed trade unions and the London boroughs.
TfL is subject to the normal legal requirements relating to the development of land. Accordingly, prior to carrying out development of land, including for rail maintenance facilities, TfL has to undertake consultation in accordance with the rules and procedures relevant to the consenting process in question. Adding a further layer of consultation there is unnecessary. Furthermore, the process for securing consents for disposal of land is well established under section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. I believe the hon. Member for Hammersmith was a member of the Government at the time. Section 163 provides the statutory regime for the disposal of former operational land, including requirements for the Secretary  of State’s consent. The promoters therefore consider that a further consenting process is neither necessary nor desirable.
Amendments 9 to 12 would lengthen the period of consultation. No solid argument seems to have been put forward by the proposer of the amendments on why that should take place. There would be a severe impact on TfL were that to take place. It would delay TfL improving its financial affairs and managing its operational undertakings, which would be detrimental to the tax-paying public and the fare-paying public. It is not clear what the impact of amendment 12 would be. It refers to a report being produced. TfL’s view is that the Bill, together with the existing processes and procedures under the 1999 Act, ensures that the exercise of the powers conferred by clause 4 will be properly exercised in discharge of statutory functions under the 1999 Act. That set of proposals is therefore unnecessary and unreasonable.

Andrew Slaughter: The hon. Gentleman asks what the point is. The point is bitter experience. I bet that he could give just as many examples from his constituency as I can from mine of projects that TfL has gone into without proper risk assessment or consideration, and which have invariably wasted millions of pounds. What we are looking for here, before steps are taken, is a proper process of review; of stepping back and thinking.

Bob Blackman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Requiring the Secretary of State to go through a process of producing risk assessments and so on is clearly extremely burdensome. It is quite clear that TfL will have to carry out those functions itself in order to justify what it is seeking to do.
Amendments 7 and 8, which the hon. Gentleman pressed in particular, are new and were not considered on 16 March 2015. The clear issue here is that exercising powers under clause 4 is subject to the consent of the Mayor, when he is granting security on borrowing or acquiring companies, and the consent of the Secretary of State, in respect of core assets and revenue. I could go into a long and detailed explanation of why that would be unnecessary. The point is that these amendments would create legal uncertainty over the whole question of what the requirements would be. They would also create uncertainty about TfL and its subsidiaries exercising the necessary flexibility around assets and revenue streams.
Since the Bill was deposited—this is a very important aspect—the operational funding from central Government has been reduced, as has been said during the debates. It will now be removed entirely, but much earlier than anticipated. The Bill, including clause 4, will assist TfL in its efforts to achieve further savings and efficiencies, while at the same time upgrading transport networks, which, I remind the House, support new jobs, new homes and economic growth in London and right across the UK. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press those amendments to a vote, because they are completely unnecessary, would create tremendous uncertainty and, indeed, would impact on TfL’s ability to generate the sorts of savings and to create the types of work that we all want to see.

Andrew Slaughter: rose—

Bob Blackman: I will give way very briefly.

Andrew Slaughter: I think I want the long and detailed explanation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. What I want to know—this is not about the first part of clause 4(2), which I understand, about
“security for money which it borrows”—
is how
“the payment of which it guarantees, or in respect of which it gives an indemnity”,
first, improves TfL’s financial position, and secondly, does not create risks to TfL.

Bob Blackman: It is quite clear that the operation under clause 4(2) mirrors what TfL can do anyway under section 160 of the 1999 Act, and the scope of what a subsidiary can lawfully do by way of offering a guarantee or indemnity is not changed by this Bill whatsoever. From that perspective, the proposals to delete these references are almost irrelevant, given that the same powers exist under the 1999 Act. TfL is merely seeking to ensure that it has got this flexibility under those arrangements.

Andrew Slaughter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bob Blackman: I have given way on a couple of occasions. If there is something else the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise, he will no doubt duly do so.
Most of the other proposals appear to have been put forward at consideration stage on 16 March 2015—they certainly formed a great part of the debate, but they clearly did not secure the agreement of the House. I therefore suggest that all the proposals put forward by the hon. Gentleman should be rejected and that we should end consideration stage and allow the Bill to proceed to Third Reading so that we can discuss its general merits.

Andrew Slaughter: I appreciate the way the hon. Gentleman has approached the debate, but he will understand that I am a little disappointed by his response and by that of the Minister, who gave the proposals a cursory few moments. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, for at least making some thoughtful comments.
It is not my fault, or that of any of the other opponents of parts of the Bill, that it has dragged on for five and a half years, and we will perhaps look at that issue on Third Reading. As I said, most of the proposals were probing or, I hope, improving proposals, and I am disappointed that they have been dealt with in a fairly cursory manner. However, I also said that I would not press them to a vote.
Let me go back to amendment 7. As I said, the powers in clause 4(2) already exist, but there is no ability to secure borrowing, or an indemnity or guarantee, against property. I asked what I thought were quite reasonable questions about that. I said that, whereas I understand the advantage of securing borrowing against property, I do not understand the benefit to TfL, the fare payer or the taxpayer of an indemnity or guarantee. I have not really received an answer on that from the Minister or the sponsor. I do not really blame the hon. Gentleman, who drew what turned out to be the short straw in being the sponsor of the Bill. TfL has serried ranks of experts in these matters—consultants, lawyers  and property people—and the fact that we have not had an answer shows a certain amount of arrogance in the way this issue has been dealt with throughout.
I am not persuaded, but I am not going to push the proposals to a vote this evening. I hope, as I have said, that we have a new Mayor who will take a different view of how these matters are dealt with and how these powers are used. I agree that these issues are not at the centre of the Bill. As I have said several times, I appreciate the concessions that TfL has made. In that spirit, I am not minded to stop the Bill going forward now.
I simply think that it shows a lingering lack of candour and transparency and an attitude of “It’s none of your business how we run our railway” when those involved cannot give a simple explanation of a fairly simple, albeit technical point. However, there it is. I have made the points I want to make on the proposals, but I do not propose to put any of them to a vote tonight. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 1, page 1, (Recitals) leave out lines 6 and 7. —(Bob Blackman.)
Clause 5

Power for TfL to form and invest in limited partnerships

Amendment made: 2, page 3, line 24, leave out clause 5.—(Bob Blackman.)
Clause 6

Specified activities

Amendments made: 3, page 4, line 19, leave out “or a limited partnership”.
Amendment 4, page 4, leave out line 21 and insert “a member; or”.
Amendment 5, page 4, leave out lines 37 and 38.
Amendment 6, page 4, line 39, leave out “(c)” and insert “(b)”.—(Bob Blackman.)
Third Reading
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—(The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Robert Goodwill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on taking this Bill to Third Reading. I have listened with interest to the contributions of Members on both sides of the Chamber.
The outcome of the 2015 spending review means that TfL will need to find further savings and look to maximise its commercial income in the interests of both the taxpayer and the travelling public. That is why I welcome the principle behind the Bill. It will enable TfL to use financial practices and mechanisms to release greater value from its assets and financing arrangements. In short, it will maximise its unique position to ensure that assets generate revenues to their greatest potential. I understand from TfL that the Bill could realise in excess of £50 million in immediate benefits by improving its hedging power, enabling it to borrow money in a more cost-effective way and allowing it to make the most of its assets.
For all of those reasons, the Government support the Bill and I look forward to seeing it finally receive Royal Assent.

Andrew Slaughter: Well, here we are, after only five and a half years, with a Bill that is better than it was when the petition was first presented in the other place on 29 November 2010. It has had an interesting history. I suspect it will be reviewed in various civil service colleges and sixth forms in years to come—although I do not think it will give any pleasure to those who study it—as an example of how not to do a private Bill, because it really did not have to be like this.
There have been some highlights, or lowlights. There was a time when the Bill was considered by the other place to be uncontentious: it went through Committees unopposed and its Second Reading was a formality. Then, up popped an organisation called the West London Line Group, which I am pleased to say is stationed, if I can put it that way, in my constituency. It pointed out that TfL was seeking, under what was then clause 4 of the Bill, to dispose of any land it wanted without the consent of the Secretary of State. After important but cursory scrutiny, TfL backed off from that most contentious and controversial part of the Bill.
The Bill then went to sleep for a long time. There were periods of 18 months when nothing happened. I do not know why that was. I have never actually asked TfL and I am not sure it could tell me even if I did. When the Bill finally came to this House in 2014—four years into its life—things became a bit more lively, because a number of parties, which I mentioned earlier, identified that it still contained some controversial parts.
More importantly, we were beginning to see, or suspect, that there were other motives behind the Bill. I do not know what TfL knew in 2010 about how quickly its revenue stream was going to be withdrawn—I suspect that it must at least have thought that that would be the case—or whether it was contemplating some of its proposed large-scale property deals. To some extent, we owe a debt of gratitude to Capco for its aggressive exploitation of the West Kensington and Earl’s Court development, which has become a cause célèbre in many ways. Indeed, it will shortly be the subject of a complaint to the European Commission on state aid, because so bad was the deal that TfL got for the Earls Court exhibition centres that those who are making the complaint contend that it amounts to unlawful state aid. In other words, the subsidy and the help that TfL has given to Capco to allow it to boost its share price, boost its profits and boost its directors’ bonuses may be unlawful under European law. We will see how well that complaint fares, but the fact that it has been contemplated suggests just how little confidence and faith many of the people who have scrutinised the Bill have in TfL’s ability to get a good deal.
I said that I would mention what the RMT has said about the matter. In the press release that it put out today, it stated:
“The construction firms with which TfL plans to engage, are running rings around TfL, helping the hapless organisation offload its prime London assets at well below the market rate.
We have no confidence in TfL to be able to secure a fair price for its land—and our concerns are borne out by its dreadful governance failures in relation to the development of Earls Court”
and:
“There is a fresh financial crisis brewing—meaning that there is an increased risk of corporate defaults—especially in the over-leveraged property sector.”
I pause to say that Capco is now discounting its luxury properties by about 20%, according to press reports last week. The press release continued:
“TfL is entering the property development game at precisely the wrong moment and in precisely the wrong way”.
That is how RMT put it. I might have chosen different words, but I cannot disagree with those sentiments. Those were real fears about the way in which TfL was, in a completely new way but across the board in relation to its assets, turning 5,700 acres of land into development sites.
As we found out, the whole thing was about money, specifically the Chancellor’s decision to withdraw £2.8 billion of Revenue funding from TfL over the next five years. That has led TfL, as I described in the earlier debate, to indulge in what I believe are risky, dubious and foolish interventions in the property market, which have allowed developers to use whatever vehicles they like with the support of a public sector organisation. It really stuck in the craw that the House was going to pass legislation that would have enabled those sorts of deals and developments to be done. It is good that the clause that contained those provisions was withdrawn in the other place and clause 5 has been withdrawn today.
If anybody does not believe me, I am happy to take any hon. Members to the Earl’s Court site, where they will be able to see the huge disruption that has been caused to a whole neighbourhood of London by dust, noise, the removal of asbestos, the threat to the security of residents and property, and the way in which the interests of small business, whole estates of people and small streets are being overridden. TfL has no control over that any longer, because it is just a sleeping partner. It is now a minority stakeholder in the land that it used to own, which it sold off at an undervalue, with loans that it guaranteed at nil interest rate. That cannot give us any confidence that if TfL had been allowed the powers that clause 5 would have given it, it would have used them in any proper way.
I am pleased that we have reached this stage, and I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) say that TfL has, belatedly, properly responded to the concerns that have been expressed not only in this House but in the other place. I am glad, therefore, that the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman candidly admitted, bears no resemblance to the one that was introduced five and a half years ago. Not only have five and a half years and a lot of debating time elapsed, but we have ended up with something that is a mere shadow of what it was before.
There is a remaining concern that I do not feel has been addressed. I did not press it to a vote. I do not think I would have won the vote if I had—I say that rather churlishly—judging by what happened on a previous occasion, when the payroll vote all came in to vote. I am sorry if I have again kept them away from their dinner tonight. As I said a few moments ago, I worry that there is still that continuing arrogance. Those at TfL say, “We know best”, but they do not know best. They do not  have a track record of doing this. In some ways, I would not expect them to have that. They are mainly transport people and they are running a railway—and quite a lot of the time, they do a good job of running a railway—but they are now getting into bed with some of the biggest property sharks and some of the least appropriate people to develop London. I am afraid that the way in which they are doing so really is a case of the lamb trying to lie down with the wolves.
I am worried about that for the future. I suspect that it will not worry me so much once we know the outcome of the mayoral election. Nevertheless, the Bill still indicates things—including in clause 4, which we have just debated in relation to amendment 7, that will still allow TfL to guarantee and indemnify third parties, and to secure those guarantees and indemnities against their own assets—that TfL should not be in the business of doing.
When we started to debate the Bill a couple hours ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) raised some very important points, which I said I would address on Third Reading, in relation to the sort of developments we can expect on TfL land. What is the purpose of the Bill? We now know—we did not know it, although TfL may have done, back in 2010—that it is mainly about making up for lost revenue. It is mainly about TfL being deprived of billions of pounds of revenue by the Chancellor. However, it is also about the type of city we will live in in London, because TfL is one of the largest public sector landowners and it is seeking to develop many of its sites. I have mentioned some in my own constituency or borough, such as in Parsons Green and Earl’s Court, and others may well be brought forward in the future. We do not know the list of developments, even though several hundred major sites are on it. One of the first things that the new Mayor could do is to publish that list and make sure that all MPs take an interest in it. I suspect that there would be substantial interest among London MPs from all parties when the list becomes available.
TfL has a wider responsibility. It should not just keep fares as low as possible, although that is important, and run an efficient railway, but ensure, as custodian of the largest part of the public realm in London, that it deals with that properly. It has a fantastic history: some TfL stations are among the best architectural buildings in London. The pride that ran all through the Victorian era and into the inter-war period—in the 1930s, there were developments of lines and stations out to the suburbs—is a fantastic credit to London and this country. It would be a terrible shame if, in the 21st century, TfL decided to build, through the variety of investment vehicles that we are tonight giving it permission to use, not just hideous overdevelopments and monstrosities, but non-functional buildings that do us no credit whatsoever either architecturally or in terms of use.
Increasingly, that is we are seeing with the sort of development partnerships into which TfL is going. When I looked at the short list of development partners that TfL has brought out I shuddered because they are exactly the same companies that are ruining the borough I live in with their riverside developments, their tall, faceless towers and the things from their pattern books that show no architectural merit whatsoever. Such developments minimise the proportion of affordable housing and the amount of amenity space, and they do not provide any social benefit at all. Unfortunately,  hard-pressed local authorities—as the planning authorities, this falls back on them—which are cutting their budgets by up to 50%, are in no position to deal with that.
This is a David and Goliath battle. It is not City Hall or the town hall that holds all the cards—the bureaucrat and Big Brother. The developers hold all the cards. They can afford the people who can make the viability assessments that they want, as well as the surveyors, architects, lawyers, consultants and accountants to run rings around TfL and the boroughs to get the developments that they want.

Ruth Cadbury: I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the Bill and what he has achieved—in particular, the removal of one specific clause. He rightly raises concerns about the planning system and how TfL’s potential private sector partners could run rings around local authorities. Is it not true that the situation will be even worse if the Housing and Planning Bill is passed, as the Government are, in effect, removing and reducing the power of local authorities to intervene actively in planning applications and decisions?

Andrew Slaughter: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. She makes two very good points about the Housing and Planning Bill. One is its anti-localist feel, as it takes planning authority away from the boroughs. The other is what that Bill is doing to housing. It is not just the case that the Government, and the coalition Government before them, have been negligent. They have been actively supporting unaffordable housing and diminishing the role of affordable housing in London.
That is very clear in the Housing and Planning Bill, in which we have not just the sale of housing association properties, but the subsidising of those sales by the sale of council properties. I have had direct experience of this problem. My borough is the only one in which, under Conservative control, the quantum of social housing actually decreased over a period of years. It did not go up at all; it went down, through demolitions, sales and other matters of that kind. That is exactly what we are seeing. The situation is getting worse. The point that I made earlier—I hope my hon. Friend agrees with it—is that we have to build more affordable housing, social housing and shared ownership housing, and more private rented housing that is affordable, especially for young people. We also need genuine low-cost home ownership.
That should be being delivered through a Bill such as this one, because TfL has that responsibility as a major public landholder in London. But it is not being delivered. The type of investment vehicles promoted through the Bill and the type of partners that will be selected will simply mean we see more of what we call safe deposit flats being built.
TfL may ask what it can do, given that its money is being taken away by the Government and it has to pull as much money as it possibly can from commercial developments. I have already explained why I think that is a short-sighted view, which may not achieve even its short-term objective of making TfL a lot of money. The luxury property market may also be in trouble.
We need sustainable development, in town centres and around stations in particular. We need car-free development, for people of all income levels and from all backgrounds. Those are the people who make our city work. Of course, if those people are able to live in  zones 1, 2 and 3, they will not be clogging up the tubes and buses, as they will be nearer to where they work. TfL already has major capacity problems, and is making a rod for its own back by helping with the process of social cleansing and pushing people out of London.
This Bill should be about Londoners’ housing and environment; it should promote air quality and alternative means of travel to the car. It should also be about having an efficient and effective transport system. It is not about any of those things, but about promoting dodgy investment vehicles with dodgy investment partners to maximise the gain for private sector development companies without their taking any risk, as that risk will instead be loaded on to the public sector, in the person of TfL. That is why we have opposed the Bill so strongly, over the past two years in particular, but also before then.
I am glad that TfL, the sponsor and possibly even the Government have listened. I suspect we have succeeded in modifying 90% of what we wanted to modify. It just did not have to be like this. When I met TfL two or three weeks ago, I said “Do you really want to go through another long debate like this in Parliament? Why don’t you hold this back until the new Mayor gets elected? I bet you could agree something that we could all agree on within half an hour.” I am afraid it did not take that in the spirit in which it was intended and it wished to press ahead. Well, it has got its Bill now. I suspect it wasted a very large sum of fare payers’ money on all its experts to get it through, which it did not need to do. I suspect it is not at all happy with the result. I hope it has had an object lesson in how Parliament works. We will not put up with the pig in a poke that the Bill was in its original form.
There are some good provisions in the Bill, but almost by definition we have not discussed them because they are unexceptional and have general support. There are still one or two bad things in the Bill. The Bill has had an unhappy history. I hope that at the very least TfL will learn two lessons: how to approach bringing Private Bills to this House and to the other place; and that we will continue to scrutinise how it does deals and how it tries to develop its property portfolio. TfL has to do this not only in its own interests as an organisation, but in the interests of the fare payer and the taxpayer, and in the interests of Londoners as a whole.

Bob Blackman: It is a pleasure to rise at what I hope will be the end of a very long journey. The purpose of the Bill is to provide TfL with additional powers, so it can meet its business needs more flexibly and take advantage of more efficient arrangements for the stewardship of its financial affairs. TfL has identified various opportunities for maximising the value of its assets. They can only be realised if TfL acquires the new statutory powers or if the restrictions on the exercise of its current powers are removed.
This has been mentioned before, but let me put it on the record: TfL is one of the biggest landowners in London, with 5,700 acres of land. Clearly, there is a pipeline of some 300 sites, with 50,000 new homes to be provided in London. We know above all else that in  London, the capital city of this country and one of the major cities of the world—if not the major city in the world—we need to provide more new homes and to keep people moving to create investment for the opportunities for jobs and for a better quality of life for everyone. The Bill enables TfL to play its part. It is clear that from October 2015 we already have 75 sites that will generate 10,000 new homes over the next two years. Two thirds of them, contrary to what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said, will be in zones 1 and 2. It is not true to say that sites are not being provided for new homes for Londoners and for people who want to make London their home.

Andrew Slaughter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bob Blackman: I will make a bit of progress and then maybe give way. The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of opportunities to put his own perspective and spin. I want to set the record straight.
Four sites in particular have been invested in recently by TfL: 360 homes at Nine Elms tube station, with 25% affordable; 55 homes in the Fenwick Estate near Clapham North tube station, of which 100% are affordable; the development at Northwood is only 20% affordable housing, but TfL has respected local demand to invest in a brand new tube station with step-free access; and at Parsons Green TfL has submitted a scheme with 40% affordable homes, which it has now withdrawn to allow further time for consultation with local businesses and residents. It is clear that TfL is responding to the request and demand for additional housing to be provided in the capital.
The Bill contains only three substantive clauses but is of great importance to TfL because it will enable it to deliver much better value for money for the fare payer and taxpaying public. The growth in London is relentless and driving up demand for services. The tube has record ridership year on year and our roads are also under great pressure. To keep London working and growing, TfL has to invest just to keep the assets in good repair, modernise the rail and road networks and improve reliability. The reality is that all its revenue is reinvested in TfL projects, be it on the roads or rail. Clearly, the issue that will be debated in the run-up to 5 May is how we keep that revenue stream increasing and ensure a fair balance between the taxpayer and the fare payer.
TfL’s £11 billion capital funding settlement from the Government runs from 2015-16 to 2020-21—the life of the Parliament—and includes a total of £5.8 billion in investment grant, £1.4 billion in general grant from the Department for Transport and, crucially, £3.8 billion in borrowing powers. That allows TfL to invest £1.7 billion a year to modernise the road and rail networks. The Circle, District, Hammersmith and City and Metropolitan lines will be the next four tube lines to be upgraded. I would have thought the hon. Member for Hammersmith would welcome that, seeing as his constituents use those lines, as do mine—I think, in particular, of the Metropolitan line.

Andrew Slaughter: rose—

Bob Blackman: No, the hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time to put his point of view.
From 2019, TfL’s objective will be to cover all the operational costs of running the tube and bus networks through non-DfT grant sources of income. It plans to do this over an extended period by running the business more effectively and efficiently. The continuous savings programme has generated a 15% reduction in costs. Following the November spending review, TfL has had to accelerate and build upon that because, as has been alluded to, its overall income is set to reduce by £2.8 billion over the period to 2020-21. The Bill will provide TfL with additional powers to run its business more flexibly and take advantage of more efficient and economic financial arrangements. This will allow TfL to maximise the value of assets, bear down on fares and deliver significantly better value for money to the public.
The first of the substantive clauses, clause 4, will allow TfL’s subsidiaries to borrow and grant security over assets and revenue streams. We have had a long debate about this issue in relation to the amendments. The powers will allow TfL to access cheaper finance for projects and to structure security so that a creditor has recourse only against subsidiary borrowing. TfL will be able to purchase subsidiary companies that already have secured debt without having to engage in costly loan restructures. Very importantly, the Secretary of State’s consent is required if core assets are to be offered as security, and the Mayor must consent to all other arrangements.
Where TfL owns more than 50% of a joint venture, clause 4 will enable TfL’s subsidiary to incur debt using the assets of the subsidiary as security. That does not advantage or disadvantage a private partner involved in the joint venture, as the increased value of the assets will be brought about with the greater flexibility in clause 4 and will be shared by TfL and the private sector partner, in accordance with the terms agreed between the parties.
Clause 5 has now been removed. Clause 6 seeks to expand the type of entities through which TfL’s commercial activities must be undertaken. TfL is currently required to undertake its profit-making activities through a company limited by shares that is either a subsidiary or a joint venture. The clause amends this restriction to give TfL the option of using any type of entities that TfL has the power to form, in addition to a company limited by shares. TfL would be able to use a company limited by guarantee or a limited liability partnership. Importantly, clause 6 preserves the policy that TfL must undertake commercial activities through a taxable entity by requiring that the subsidiary be a member of a limited liability partnership. Clause 6 will enable TfL to conduct its affairs more flexibly and net the maximum value from the assets.
Clause 7 amends TfL’s hedging power, responding to changes in the way that financial institutions hedge risk away from specific commodity trading to trading by indices—as, for example, in the use of an oil price index, as opposed to a barrel of Brent crude oil. It also gives TfL the capacity to enter into a derivative investment when TfL is exposed to a risk by virtue of contractual arrangements for the provision by others of public passenger transport services—for example, if there were movements in fuel prices, it would allow TfL to hedge the costs. Clause 7 also clarifies that TfL may use its hedging powers in respect of its liability to any pension fund. It is not proposed that TfL enter into any derivative  investments on behalf of the TfL pension funds, but TfL will be able to hedge its contribution risk to the fund.
Given the benefit to TfL pension fund members, some of whom will be members of RMT, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is no longer in his place, acknowledged the merits of clause 7 on Second Reading. Once again, I find it hard to see the logic of the hon. Member for Hammersmith’s continuing to block the Bill. It seems that my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen have misconceptions about the scope of the Bill, but, contrary to assertions made on Second Reading and elsewhere, the Bill does not give TfL any new powers to sell or develop its land. TfL has had those powers since it was created in 2000, and it is not seeking to enlarge them in any way. Neither can TfL act autonomously when it wishes to dispose of its interests in its land, including when granting a long-term lease. TfL must obtain the consent of the Mayor to sell surplus land, and if that land is operational land or has been operational land in the last five years, the Secretary of State must give his or her consent.
Some colleagues suggested on Second Reading that TfL’s track record shows that it is not competent enough to be given greater powers and that it should focus on its core function of providing transport services rather than delving into joint venture projects with developers. It cannot be disputed that TfL serves more customers more efficiently and more reliably than at any point in its history. Providing public passenger transport will always be TfL’s main focus. The powers it seeks in the Bill will not detract from its discharge of those functions, and the discrete scope of the Bill should be taken as indicative of a change in TfL’s priorities.
The Bill will, however, give TfL greater opportunity to secure sustainable income from its assets, rather than a one-off capital receipt from their disposal. Very importantly, that is to adopt a long-term strategy to the management of its property estate, which will allow TfL to maximise the value of its assets and deliver better value for money to the public.
I am somewhat confused because it would appear that the hon. Member for Hammersmith is so lacking in confidence in his candidate for the mayoralty that he would seek to block this Bill in order to get him there. I am looking forward to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) assuming his place as Mayor of London on 6 May, and we can look forward to this Bill helping him to deliver more homes, more jobs and better and safer transport for the people of London.

Daniel Zeichner: You will be pleased to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not intend to repeat the substantial points I made in my earlier contribution—[Interruption.] That is no doubt the biggest cheer of the night. There is always a but, however, and I shall reiterate one or two minor points. Let me first put on record the thanks of Labour Members for the sterling efforts of our hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who has staged a heroic fight over many months and years on this issue. As a consequence, we end up with a better Bill.
Let me return to my earlier point: the pressure on TfL is clearly a consequence of the substantial cut in support from the Government in the recent Budget. That has caused a significant shift in the way in which TfL operates. I hear what others have said about its capacity to use resources well and make the best possible use of its assets, and we hope that their confidence is justified, but we also share the misgivings expressed by my hon. Friends about some of the potential bedfellows whom TfL may seek out. This becomes a much wider and more complicated debate about the role of public authorities such as TfL at a time when so many people in our city are experiencing such acute housing problems. Labour Members, certainly, feel that TfL’s most important role is to keep our capital working and moving successfully.
Nevertheless, we have a better Bill, not least because of the withdrawal of clause 5, which, in our view, would have led us down a dangerous route. On the basis that we have secured some improvements, let us end the evening on a positive note. We hope that TfL will be able to take the opportunities that some Members have described, although we ourselves still have some reservations.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

ROAD AND RAIL LINKS: SHEFFIELD AND MANCHESTER

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Barclay.)

Angela Smith: The debate has been slightly delayed. At least three colleagues who share my concern about trans-Pennine links would have joined me in the Chamber tonight, but the late start has prevented them from doing so. I wanted to put that on the record.
The economic case for new transport infrastructure between Sheffield and Manchester is very strong. The National Infrastructure Commission has reported that the north in general
“needs immediate and very significant investment for action now and a plan for longer-term transformation to reduce journey times, increase capacity and improve reliability.”
It admits that
“Sheffield’s economy…is small compared to that of Leeds and Manchester, with lower productivity and skills levels”,
and that—this is the important point—
“the city is less well linked to the surrounding region, in particular with the Pennines limiting connectivity to the west.”
It also points out that
“the lack of a good transport link between the two means that their economies are largely separate from each other.”
That is a big problem for the northern powerhouse project, and a real obstacle to the delivery of progress.
Only 10,000 vehicles a day travel between Greater Manchester and south Yorkshire, whereas 55,000 a day travel between west Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. There may be slight differences in population, but the only real explanation for the disparity must be the poor transport links between the former two regions. The implication is that the vast majority of potential travel between them simply does not take place, because the infrastructure needed to accommodate it does not exist.

Andrew Bingham: I congratulate the hon. Lady on initiating a debate on a matter that she will know is close to my heart, because my constituency is just on the other side of the Pennines. Does she agree that the problems on the two principal roads between her constituency and Greater Manchester, which go through my constituency—the A628 and the A57—are preventing people from travelling, and preventing them from creating a link between two big economies that need to dovetail as part of the northern powerhouse?

Angela Smith: I entirely agree with my constituency neighbour. As I shall go on to explain in detail, the key problem is that those two roads are effectively mountain passes—or what pass for mountain routes in England—and they run through a national park. The fact that two of our major northern cities are divided by the huge obstacle presented by those two very difficult roads lies at the heart of the problem.
I want to illustrate the economic impact with a concrete example before I move on to describe the two roads that the hon. Gentleman referred to. Tata Speciality Steels has a dedicated service centre in Bolton, which is obviously on the other side of the Pennines from the factory, and  the company experiences real logistical difficulties precisely because of the poor links between the two areas. There are three road routes across the Pennines. We have the A57, part of which is known as the Snake pass. Incidentally, it was not given that name because of its winding nature; it was named after a feature on the Duke of Devonshire’s coat of arms. It is nevertheless incredibly difficult to use. Heavy goods vehicles find it impossible; indeed, they are advised not to use it. Even cars can find it difficult in bad conditions. It is, after all, a mountain pass.
The A628 is therefore the major road across the Pennines between Sheffield and Manchester, but the height and exposure of the road often create problems during poor weather in winter, and it is sometimes closed due to snowfall or high winds. However, road closures on the Woodhead pass are more often the result of road traffic accidents than of bad weather. In 2011, four of the eight closures on the Woodhead pass were due to road traffic accidents, and four were due to bad weather. In 2012 there were 14 closures, eight of which were the result of road traffic accidents. The other six were due to bad weather. There were 12 closures in 2013; eight were due to road traffic accidents and four to bad weather. So, in the latest year for which we have statistics, the major road crossing between two of our biggest cities was closed on average once a month. That is a huge obstacle for people and, in particular, for businesses trying to make logistical transport plans in order to do their work.
We also have the M62, but using it to go from Sheffield to Manchester involves making a massive detour. I used the AA route planner this evening and worked out that if you use the M62 to go up from Sheffield, across the Pennines and down to Manchester, the distance is 72.5 miles and the journey takes one hour and 42 minutes. If you use the A628, the distance is only 37.8 miles, but the journey is only 20 minutes shorter. Using the motorway involves travelling twice the distance but takes only 20 minutes longer. That is if you are lucky—we all know that the M62 can be hugely congested. It is therefore not a realistic option, and we need to do something about the trans-Pennine link.
As for rail, the average speed of rail travel across the Pennines between the major cities is below 50 mph. This has led to the contained nature of travel in the northern regions. An analysis of travel patterns between northern cities by Transport for the North suggests that levels of commuting are below what might be expected given the size and relative proximity of the cities in question, bearing in mind that Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester are equidistant from each other. Commuting between Sheffield and Manchester, for example, is 38% lower than could be expected. As an example of the slow speeds that we experience, the trains from Manchester to Sheffield travel at less than half the average speed of those travelling between London and Milton Keynes.
Trains are also running at capacity on the Hope Valley line. The hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) will know that line, as will the Minister. The trains run at capacity during the rush hour, with an average of 7,224 passengers coming into Sheffield from Manchester each morning during peak hours, which is 2.3% in excess of capacity. This results in 7.8% of passengers having to stand during those morning journeys.
As the Minister knows, I would be the first to acknowledge that progress is being made. Proposals are on the table for a new road tunnel and a new rail tunnel involving a high-speed route across the Pennines. I welcome those proposals; I am not playing politics. I know that work is being undertaken to establish the feasibility of at least three of the original five potential corridors for a road link across the Pennines. The feasibility work needs to include the impacts on nearby land use and economic growth, and there are the environmental concerns relating to a long road tunnel. I am hopeful that if the proposed new road tunnel is feasible and if the economic case can be made, the Government will press ahead with this important project.

Andrew Bingham: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Smith: I cannot, as I have only a few minutes left.
As for the new rail project, the National Infrastructure Commission has made it clear that it recommends kick-starting High Speed 3, and that its integration with HS2 would be the best way of planning the new rail development in the area. Important route decisions for HS2 need to be made over forthcoming months, and I put it on the parliamentary record—I have already done so locally—that Meadowhall is the best option for an HS2 station in South Yorkshire on the way to Leeds at end of the eastern branch of HS2.
We have heard that the Government plan an HS3 route from Manchester to Leeds, and I need to make it clear and put it on the record that any such project cannot be allowed to miss out South Yorkshire. It is absolutely critical to the economic resilience and redevelopment of the north of England that the new rail route serves South Yorkshire and potentially the south bank of the Humber as much as it serves Leeds and the north bank of the Humber. A new tunnelled rail link could come out in the Penistone area, probably in my constituency, and spur not only up to Leeds and over to Hull, but down into South Yorkshire, Sheffield, Rotherham and potentially beyond. The developments on the table are exciting, but we are absolutely adamant in South Yorkshire that we want to be included in the Government’s options for both rail and road.
Some of us have been campaigning for years for a new rail route across the Pennines. We initially focused on reopening the old Woodhead route, but we lost that campaign and electric cables have now been established in the old 1953 tunnel by National Grid. It is clear that we did not lose the argument about the need for new rail infrastructure; however, the connections suggested so far are not to Sheffield, which is what the campaign for a new Woodhead route was always about, or to South Yorkshire, but to Leeds, so we need to deal with that. We need a commitment to a route that crosses the Pennines and then serves all the major urban communities of the north. Why do we need to do all that? All the Government’s arguments about the northern powerhouse and the rebalancing of the economy are brought into focus by the need to do something about the trans-Pennine transport links, which is what the NIC has driven home in the conclusion of its report. The NIC’s argument that poor connectivity is holding back economic development in South Yorkshire underpins the case.
I want to finish by mentioning the achievements of our Victorian forebears. I mentioned the Woodhead line earlier, so let us look at the facts. It was built by the Victorians, and when the first railway tunnel was completed in 1845, it was one of the longest in the world. The second tunnel was completed in 1853. Both those tunnels would potentially be usable even now, but for their being no longer in maintenance. That is a great testament to the foresight and engineering skills of our Victorian ancestors. As far as I am concerned, they managed it, and so can we. They saw the economic potential of linking two rapidly growing northern cities—a steel city and Manchester—and so should we. They also invested for the long term, and so should we.
A 30-year appraisal in the cost-benefit analysis of the need for these links—the road link and the rail link—is not adequate; we need an analysis and an economic case that understands that we are building for the long term. We need to look at a 100-year case for building this new infrastructure. We would never have built the Woodhead line or many of our railway lines across the country if we had not taken a long-term view of the interests of the economy in areas such as Sheffield, Manchester and London. Would we have even built the tube in London had we not taken such an approach? That is what we need to understand.
On that basis, there is a great deal of support among Opposition Members for what the Government are trying to achieve. As I said, more of my colleagues would have been here to support this debate had it not been postponed for so long because of other very urgent business. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks. I hope that he will concede the case for the Sheffield link to HS3, and that he will give us some optimistic updates on the progress on both the road link and the rail link that we are all looking forward to seeing.

Andrew Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on securing this debate on road and rail links connecting Sheffield and Manchester. She has been making some valuable points about the need for improved transport links, and I agree with her comments about the debt we owe to our Victorian forefathers and the long-term approach they took to their planning. There are indeed lessons we can take from that. One thing I did learn during her speech was how Snake pass got its name—I did not know that until a few moments ago.
On 7 March, the Department for Transport and Transport for the North jointly published the first annual update report on the northern transport strategy. The report is the culmination of 12 months of collaborative work with Transport for the North and other transport agencies, and it sets out the significant progress that has been made in laying the foundation for transformative infrastructure projects across the north of England, connecting key cities and areas across the region, enabling the north to become more than the sum of its parts. The report sets out the next steps, including major improvements to the north’s road networks, connecting the north’s regions better by rail, and enhancing the passenger experience of travelling across the north by using smart and integrated ticketing technologies.
Improving east-west connectivity is at the heart of the northern transport strategy report. Our work to date has shown that the north of England has a number of cities that perform well individually but lack the transport connectivity needed to drive improved output and employment. Boosting that connectivity is essential to creating that single and well-connected economy of the north, which is our objective in the northern powerhouse.
The hon. Lady’s debate specifically focuses on the city regions of Sheffield and Greater Manchester, both of which are key economic centres for the north; they are certainly at the forefront of all of our thinking on northern transport strategies. The cities and their wider regions are key to the success of the northern powerhouse, and there is significant potential for enhanced growth if we can link the two cities much more closely together. The economic case that she made was important, highlighting the lack of economic integration between two large cities that are only 40 miles apart compared with other neighbours, where the read-across is absolutely correct.
Both city regions have strengths in advanced manufacturing, nuclear energy, health technologies and IT. We need to make it quicker and easier for companies in those sectors and all others—we are talking about very diverse economies—to do business with each other. We also need to make it easier and quicker for skilled and experienced employees to work and develop careers across both city regions.
On road connectivity, we are committed to ensuring that strategic road travel is both free flowing and reliable. In announcing the road investment strategy in 2014, we delivered a step change in how road investment in this country is delivered.
Before 2020, we will commence improvements to a number of roads, greatly improving transport links and connectivity across the country. The north of England is obviously an important part of our road investment strategy. However, any conversation about links between Sheffield and Manchester must give due regard to ensuring that the spectacular natural beauty of the Pennines is preserved. That is why we are considering the case for a new high performance road tunnel between these two great cities.
A Government-commissioned study into that endeavour has already determined that there is a clear strategic case for a road tunnel. In addition to bringing potentially significant economic benefits to the region, this tunnel could also deliver environmental benefits to the Peak District national park. It does no service to the national park, with all of its beauty, that it should have back-to-back HGVs ploughing through difficult road conditions, causing all of the problems that come with that in terms of congestion and air quality.
I cannot at this stage provide concrete details about the project, such as the exact scale of the economic benefits, the cost or indeed the most important matter of a preferred route for a potential tunnel, but I will certainly be back to give the House a thorough update on those issues and on the study findings as soon as we have them. It is an important long-term project. It has been talked about in the north for very many years. We are taking it forward and are determined to make it a reality should all the criteria work for us.
This study, alongside studies considering the case for the significant improvements to the M60 and the north Pennines connectivity, the A66 and the A69, will publish its final report by the end of the year. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already allocated £75 million from the £300 million transport development fund to ensure that, if these studies indicate that there is a strong case for developing these schemes, we can get shovels in the ground on these transformational projects as soon as possible.

Andrew Bingham: The improvements to the A628 and the A57, the Mottram relief road and the Glossop Spur, are very welcome. The Minister will know from his visit to High Peak not long ago that we need to extend that work. I really must stress that, although this is welcome, speed is the key. I do not mean the speed of the traffic as it trundles through Glossop at 5 mph, but the speed of delivering these projects, because we are experiencing huge problems in my constituency.

Andrew Jones: I very much enjoyed the visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency, and the point he makes was brought home by that visit and by talking to residents and to neighbouring colleagues from this House who also joined us on that visit. I will come on to talk a bit more about that very shortly, but his point is fair, and I agree with the urgency of the case.
The tunnel and these long-term studies are examples of the kind of forward-thinking, long-term planning that has been a characteristic in transport planning in our country and is something that we are trying very hard to recover. We have made a good start on that, and it is a key part of our approach to transport. We are also committed to putting in place improvements to transport corridors between Sheffield and Manchester in the more imminent future. That builds on the points mentioned by my hon. Friend.
We have already announced a number of measures that will seek to alleviate pressure on the transport network in the short to medium term. This includes improvements to the A628 in the Peak District national park, with the introduction of two overtaking lanes. There are also additional upgrades on both sides of the national park, with schemes due to improve both the Mottram Moor link road and the A61, improving journeys between Manchester and all of south Yorkshire. There are also other smaller measures in place to address accident blackspots.
On timing, it is expected that construction of the schemes set out in the first roads investment strategy will commence by March 2020. I know that my hon. Friend and other colleagues across the House are impatient for progress, so I will do all that I can to look at ways in which we can advance that date through the design and delivery process. Nevertheless, I must also stress that we will work closely with the National Park Authority to ensure that these improvements are in keeping with the Peak District national park’s protected landscape.

Angela Smith: The Minister will be aware of the controversial history of any attempt to deal with congestion, particularly around Mottram and Tintwistle. May I ask him to work effectively with groups such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Friends of the Peak District to ensure that we keep not just the national park onside but the environmentalists, who have a passionate concern about our wonderful national park?